Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

COURTS OF REFEREES (CHAIRMEN'S FEES).

Mr. LAWTHER: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has now come to a decision to reduce the fees of two-and-a-half guineas plus travelling and subsistence allowance now paid to chairmen and deputy-chairmen of courts of referees for each sitting?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): A reduction of 10 per cent. is being made as from 1st October in the fees payable to chairmen, reserve chairmen, and deputy-chairmen of courts of referees. No alteration is at present contemplated in the scales of travelling and subsistence allowances.

Mr. LAWTHER: I would like to know whether there have been any consultations with these chairmen with reference to this cut, and also why no cut has taken place in the subsistence allowance, seeing that those they have to deal with have had a cut in that respect?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir, no consultation has taken place, and it seems to me that a cut of 10 per cent. is in the circumstances fair.

Mr. BATEY: Is the Minister aware that the cut of 10 per cent. will still leave these men with £2 7s. 6d. a day, and does he think the position of the country warrants that?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order. This is evidently a matter of opinion and ought not to be answered.

SERVICE CANTEEN VACANCIES.

Mr. SIMMONS: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that numbers of girls in the Birmingham district have been deprived of their unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks in consequence of their refusal to accept service in Army canteens; whether their parents' consent was obtained before they were offered this employment; and if conscientious objection to any form of military service is taken into account in such cases?

Mr. LONGDEN: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the denial of unemployment benefit to several young women in Birmingham because of their refusal to accept work in military canteens; and whether he will instruct the local officers not to insist upon the acceptance of such work away from home as a condition for the receipt of benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am making inquiries regarding these questions and will communicate with the hon. Members as soon as these are completed.

Mr. SIMMONS: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that conscientious objection to military service was recognised during the War, and bear that point specially in mind?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the hon. Member knows, this question was fully considered by my predecessor, and, as at present advised, I see no reason to alter the course she took.

Major COLFOX: Can serving in a grocer's shop be regarded by any stretch of the imagination as military service?

REGULATIONS.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour when the report of the committee dealing with Regulations under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act will be available to Members?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The committee have held two meetings and will meet again to-morrow to consider thtir report.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Has the Minister any idea when it will be available? Will it be before the House rises for the General Election?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I certainly hope so, and, as the hon. Member knows, under the terms of the Act it will be laid on the Table of the House.

Mr. THORNE: Are any regulations under consideration?

Sir H. BETTERTON: They have been considering them during the meetings which have been held.

Mr. THORNE: But have you submitted to them regulations for their consideration?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, I have, and I am awaiting their report on what they think of the regulations.

EXCHANGE ACCOMMODATION, WOOLSTON, SOUTHAMPTON.

Mr. MORLEY: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that at the Woolston, Southampton, Employment Exchange large numbers of men are compelled to queue up in wet weather without any shelter; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Speaking generally, there is no need for claimants to wait for any length of time without shelter, if they will only observe the timing system. I am, however, having inquiries made into the position at Woolston, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

STATISTICS.

Mr. EDE: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed persons are registered at South Shields, and how many of these have drawn 26 or more weeks' benefit during the present benefit year, giving the figures for the last week for which both sets are available or for which a reliable estimate can be made?

Mr. ISAACS: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour how many of the present recipients of benefit at the Borough Employment Exchange are receiving transitional benefit; and if the whole of such cases are to be remitted to the public assistance committees for examination as to means?

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons receiving benefit at the Sheffield and Attercliffe Employment Exchanges, respectively, at the last available date and
the number receiving transitional benefit; and whether he can give any estimate as to the number likely to be referred to the public assistance committee when the proposed change first comes into operation and also three months later?

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of transitional benefit in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire separately?

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in receipt of benefit in the counties of Monmouth and Glamorgan, separately; the average weekly amount paid to each insured person; the number of those in receipt of transitional benefit at present; and the estimated number of those who will have completed their standard benefit and passed to the transitional stage for the months of October, November and December, respectively?

Mr. EGAN: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed men and women are receiving transitional benefit at Birkenhead Employment Exchange; and whether all those cases will be referred to the public assistance committee for a means test?

Mr. MARSHALL: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in the city of Sheffield receiving transitional benefit who will, under the new regulations, be referred to the public assistance committee for assessment of means?

Mr. TOM SMITH: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered at Pontefract, Castleford and Goole Employment Exchanges at the latest available date; and the number who will be transferred to the public assistance committees for calculation of benefit when the new proposals come into operation?

Major MILNER: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons (men, women, boys and girls) registered as unemployed in the city of Leeds to the latest convenient date, and the number who are at present in receipt of transitional benefit in the same area whose cases will be referred forthwith to the public assistance committee under the National Economy Act?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am having the figures extracted and hope to circulate the answers in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning.

Mr. EDE: Has the hon. Gentleman entered into communication with public assistance committees in places like South Shields to ascertain how long they think it will take them to deal with the application of a needs test to the large number of people involved?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No Sir, I have not.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Will the hon. Gentleman give separately the numbers who reside outside the borough of South Shields and register there?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can we have papers laid showing the facts in all the areas?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I shall not only be very glad, but it will be my duty to give the figures after they have been extracted with regard to any areas, and, if the hon. and gallant Member desires, Hull.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether public assistance committees in assessing the incomes of unemployed persons will take into account disability pensions; and whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in some branches of the British Legion regarding this matter?

Sir H. BETTERTON: There is another question on that point.

Mr. EDE: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange that the figures shall he available for hon. Members to-morrow, so that they can take them to their constituencies where they have to meet public assistance committees?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, I had that in mind. This involves a great deal of labour, but I will make every endeavour to get these figures into the OFFICIAL. REPORT by to-morrow morning.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed persons will be transferred to the transition class as a result of the terms outlined in the White Paper 3952; and what will be the total number in the transition class according to the latest estimate?

Mr. LAWSON: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons on transition benefit, including those who will come on transition under the operation of the new 26 weeks benefit rule, whose cases will have to be investigated by the public assistance authorities?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Figures obtained in respect of 14th September, 1931, show that on that date about 377,000 persons (of whom about 80,000 were women) in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit had received 156 days' benefit or more in their current benefit years. In addition there were at 24th August, 1931, about 475,000 persons (of whom 101,000, were women) with claims authorised for transitional benefit. Tre total number in these two classes was therefore approximately 852,000 of whom 181,000 were women.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has any estimate been obtained of the cost of the inquisition into the means of these 900,000 people?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is quite another question.

Mr. LAWSON: Have any discussions taken place with the public assistance committees as to how they are going to handle these large numbers of people?

Sir H. BETTERTON: We have every reason to believe that the public assistance committees will be quite capable of dealing with the work.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the public assistance committees have been notified that the numbers will be approximately 900,000?

Sir H. BETTERTON: They will have been notified, because figures have already been given—the figure of 377,000 in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and the other figures, which are less than those estimated by my predecessor, have been given in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Has any estimate of the cost of the inquisition been produced? If so, may we know the figure?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir, it is impossible at this stage to tell the cost.

Mr. LAWSON: This is a rather important matter, because we are laying a great burden on the public assistance committees, and probably at some cost to them. Has there been any direct communication with the public assistance committees as to whether they will agree to undertake these duties?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I think I see now what is in the hon. Gentleman's mind. The additional cost to the public assistance committees will be borne by the Exchequer and not by the public assistance committees.

Mr. LOGAN: Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that not co-opted members of the public assistance committees, but elected guardians shall deal with these cases?

BENEFIT.

Mr. THORNE: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether instructions have been issued to the Exchanges to discontinue unemployment benefit on the first payday after 1st October to those persons who have drawn 26 weeks' benefit; and, if so, if he can state approximately the number of men and women who will cease to draw benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No instructions have yet been issued. The numbers likely to be affected were given in the reply of 2ist September to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). Those affected will be entitled to claim transitional payments, and during the interval of time that will necessarily elapse before the case of an individual claimant can be examined payments will be continued at the revised standard rates, subject to the usual conditions as to proof of unemployment and otherwise.

Mr. THORNE: Is the House to understand that, if a man has received 26 weeks' benefit he has to attend and prove whether he is entitled to further benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: He will then come before the public assistance committee for the assessment of his means.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: Is that answer in accord with the statement made by the Prime Minister, that the whole of the applications and the whole atmosphere will be that of the Employment Exchange and not an investigation under the Poor Law?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not sure that I have in mind precisely the passage to which the hon. Member refers, but, if there is any further information that he wants, perhaps he will put down another question.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the Minister of Labour not aware that it is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT that that statement has been made with regard to this change of the law?

Mr. EGAN: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour what instructions, if any, have been issued to public assistance committees for guidance in dealing with cases referred to such committees by labour Employment Exchanges under the new means test?

Sir H. BETTERTON: would refer the lion. Member to the reply given on the 22nd September in answer to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor).

Mr. T. GRJFFITHS: In the case of unemployed men who have built houses of their own and come before the public assistance committee, will that be taken into consideration before they get any relief?

Mr. EGAN: Could the hon. Gentleman let me have a copy of the instructions?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The regulations, as I have said, are under consideration and will be laid before Parliament in due course.

Mr. T. SMITH: Will disability pensions be taken into account by the public assistance committee, and is the Minister aware of the dissatisfaction existing in some branches of the British Legion on this matter?

Sir H. BETTERTON: There is another question on the Order Paper dealing with that very point.

EDINBURGH AND LEITH.

Mr. MATHERS: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of unemployed workers on the registers of the Employment Exchanges in Edinburgh and Leith, respectively, on the 15th May, 1931 and the proportion of these in receipt of benefit; and will he give similar particulars for each of the preceding three years?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may,

Following is the reply:


Persons on the Registers of the Edinburgh and Leith Employment Exchanges.


Date.
Edinburgh.
Leith.


Numbers on the Register.
Proportion with claims admitted or under consideration
Numbers on the Register.
Proportion with claims admitted or under consideration.





Per cent.

Per cent.


18th May, 1931
…
14,204
83.7
7,124
88.7


19th May, 1930
…
11,018
87.1
5,343
90.7


13th May, 1929
…
8,024
63.1
4,512
77.2


21st May, 1928
…
8,445
73.2
3,900
88.0

Mr. MATHERS: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour the total amount paid out in unemployment benefit at the Employment Exchanges in Edinburgh and Leith, respectively, during the year ended 15th May, 1931; and will he give similar particulars for each of the preceding three years?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MATHERS: Will the Minister of Labour give an indication of how the figures go?

Sir H. BETTERTON: There are two long columns. I am in the hands of the House, and I will read the figures if the House wishes.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Following is the reply:

The total amount of benefit paid at the Edinburgh and Leith Employment Exchanges was as follows:


Year ended
Edinburgh.
Leith.



£
£


15 th May, 1931
503,932
253,453


15 th May 1930
255,762
149,714


15 th May 1929
254,537
140,667


15 th May 1928
179,524
99,158

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Mr. MANDER: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government will consider allowing the amount to be saved

circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

on economies in unemployment benefits to be found wholly by the removal of anomalies and abuses so far as this may prove practicable, with a view to leaving the present rate of unemployment benefit unchanged?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. This is not a practicable course.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MANDER:

11. To ask the Minister of Labour whether the Government are prepared to make arrangements by which the proposed reduction in unemployment benefit shall be restored in the event of there being an equivalent increase in the cost of living?

Major COLFOX: On a point of Order. Before this question is asked, may I submit that it is a hypothetical question?

Mr. SPEAKER: It would not be on the Order Paper if it were.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer my my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Perry) by the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that the unemployed are going to have, in addition, a devaluation cut and a tariff cut, will the hon. Gentlemen not reconsider abandoning these proposals?

Mr. PERRY: Has the hon. Gentleman now got a copy of the circular referred to yesterday showing an increase of 2s. 3d. a sack on flour?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is not relevant to the question on the Paper. The answer to that question was given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council yesterday.

Mr. PERRY: Did the hon. Gentleman refer to that answer?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the retail charges in the co-operative shops?

PROPOSED CUTS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister the fall in the value of the pound since Thursday, 17th September; and whether, in view of the resulting increase in the cost of living in this country, he will reconsider the threatened cut in unemployment benefit and in the other services?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Stanley Baldwin): As regards the external value of the pound, the bon. Member must form his own judgment from the various published exchange quotations. As regards the rest of the question, I would refer to the answer given by me yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Perry).

Mr. MACLEAN: As the Prime Minister himself based the justification for the cut in unemployment benefit on the fact that the cost-of-living had fallen by 11½ per cent., is it not now justifiable to remove that cut when the cost of living is increased by 10 per cent.?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that at present the suggestion of the hon. Member is in the region of hypothesis. The facts are against him, and I am sure he will agree with that distinguished philosopher who said that there was no greater tragedy than to see a hypothesis killed by a fact.

Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman will see his hypothesis killed by my facts if he will accompany me to any working-class district to-night.

Mr. PERRY: Has the right hon. Gentleman now confirmed the information which I tried to convey to him yesterday, that one of the largest firms of millers in this country increased their price by 2s. 3d. per sack?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday.

BRITISH TREASURY CREDITS (UNITED STATES AND FRANCE).

Major MILNER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will inquire from the lenders as to the possibility of a modification of the special conditions of borrowing which have necessitated cuts in unemployment benefit, with a view to the abandonment of such cuts?

Mr. S. BALDWIN: I am unable to accept the implications contained in the hon. and gallant Member's question, to which the answer is in the negative.

Major MILNER: Are we to understand that what the Prime Minister said on Monday last is not correct?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot answer for the contents of anyone's mind except my own. I would remind the lion and gallant Gentleman that two days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked, in precise terms, whether any conditions, political or economic, had been imposed, and he answered, "No," which seems to me comprehensive and to which I can add nothing.

Major MILNER: What special conditions were laid down in respect of the credits which this country obtained, as stated by the Prime Minister?

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be good enough to put that question down.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate can be given to the House as to the net charge likely to fall upon the taxpayer in repaying the credits which were used up in pegging or defending sterling; and how it is intended to meet this deficit?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): Clearly no such estimate can be given at the present time. As the right hon. and gallant Member is well aware, there is no question of any real loss since the liabilities in gold currencies are fully covered by holdings in actual gold.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand that we need not repay the £80,000,000 credit in gold? I understood it was borrowed in sterling and was used for sterling and has to be repaid in francs and dollars.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think I said the other day that the gold reserves at the bank are held against the possibility of having to redeem in gold.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any under-writing or over-riding commissions or other cash benefits accrued to the negotiating British bankers on the $200,000,000 loan raised in the United States of America and on the 2,500,000,000 francs raised in France?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this to be taken as a precedent far further Government loans? Are there to be no more underwriting commissions?

Mr. SNOWDEN: If it is necessary to have further Government borrowings, that matter, among others, will, no doubt, be taken into consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the past very heavy commissions have been paid for Government loans?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have nothing to add.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the desire of the French Government to lend us money to keep up the price of sterling; and will he see that any future credits to this country are made in sterling?

Mr. SNOWDEN: His Majesty's Government warmly appreciate the desire expressed by the French Government to do everything in their power to assist in maintaining the stability of sterling. Circumstances were not such as to make it useful for His Majesty's Government to obtain a further credit in France. Clearly I could make no statement at present on the suggestion in the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will any future attempts to peg sterling be made on money borrowed in sterling and not on money borrowed in other currency?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is simply a repetition of the last part of the question. It is a hypothetical question, and I am not prepared to answer it.

PRICE OF SILVER.

Mr. MORLEY: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to effect a rise, with concomitant stabilisation, in the price of silver?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question which he asked on 17th March last.

Mr. MORLEY: Has no action been taken in the matter in the interval? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a few days ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir Horne) said in a public statement that a rise in the price of silver would be of immense benefit to British commerce and industry? Is no attention to be paid to the right hon. Gentleman's views?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid I do not always read the speeches of politicians, and I am not aware of the statement to which the hon. Member refers. The answer to the first part of his question is the answer that I gave him.

FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS.

Mr. SHINWELL: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the number of transactions in sterling by British nationals in the past three weeks; and whether he can state how many were transactions of a bona fide commercial character?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is not possible, for obvious reasons, to give any exact figures as to foreign exchange transactions by British nationals in any given period, such as those asked for in the question.

Mr. SHINWELL: Would it not be possible to get the information by consulting private exchange brokers and others?

Mr. SNOWDEN: We have, as I said the other day, made very exhaustive inquiries into the matter. There are thousands of transactions involved and it is impossible to get at them all, but my information is that there has been no substantial withdrawal on British account.

Mr. SHINWELL: In cases where it has been proved that such convertibility has taken place, is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to take action?

Mr. SNOWDEN: There was no power to take action before Monday, but now, by the Treasury Order that I signed on Monday night, there will be greater power by the banks to refuse to transfer into foreign exchange.

INCOME TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 59
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, in view of the fact that the sums placed to reserve by co-operative societies for the purpose of extending their businesses are not subject to Income Tax under Schedules C and D, he will grant similar exemption to all forms of private enterprise for the purpose of encouraging the trade and commerce of the nation;
(2) whether he is satisfied that the provisions of Section 24 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, are being observed with regard to the exemption of co-operative societies from payment of Income Tax under Schedules C and D if they do trade with non-members; and, if he is not, whether he will have the necessary action taken to enforce the provision regarding co-operative societies trading with non-members;
(3) whether the Government will cause co-operative societies to keep separate records of trading transactions with nonmembers in order that the trading profit therefrom may be accessible to Income Tax under Schedules C and D?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the exemption from Income Tax, Schedules C and D, to which he refers, is invalidated by sales to non-members. The exemption still applies unless there is in addition a limitation on the society's shareholding. Nor is he correct in assuming that the undistributed income of the societies is entirely exempt from taxation, for in fact the societies pay Income Tax, Schedules A and B, on their property. I must point out that the whole question of the taxation of cooperative societies has frequently been discussed in Finance Bill Debates in recent years and successive Governments
have declined to alter the existing basis of taxation.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman start a precedent by going into the whole question and taking steps to tax them?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Does not a state of emergency arise?

Mr. SNOWDEN: There is no need for me to go further into the matter. I think I understand the position and, if an inquiry were necessary, I certainly would not prejudice it by making up my mind beforehand, as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. THORNE: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the instructions which have been issued to the clerical staff of the Income Tax department to work overtime until April next in consequence of the changes that have been made in the scales of Income Tax, if he will state the number of hours per week to be worked; whether special rates are to be paid; the estimated cost of the overtime; and whether he has considered the advisability of employing extra temporary men and women having the necessary qualifications for this work?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The amount of additional work resulting from the projected changes in the Income Tax law cannot yet be ascertained with precision, and accordingly no reliable estimate of its cost can be given at present. It is clear, however, that the volume of work will be considerable. Wherever practicable, additional temporary staff will be employed, but I am afraid it will not be possible to find any substantial number of men and women possessing the qualifications to which the hon. Member refers. The nature of the work to be carried out is such as to preclude the employment of untrained staff to any large extent. In these circumstances there is no alternative but to call upon the clerical staff to work an abnormal amount of overtime. This may amount to as much as 15 hours a week per head, but there will, of course, be suitable intervals free of overtime. The usual arrangements in regard to rates are being modified in some respects to meet the altogether exceptional circumstances which have arisen.

Mr. THORNE: Am I to understand from that answer that, although it is rather a technical job, there are no people knocking about qualified to assist in getting through this work at all?

Major ELLIOT: Not quite that. This is work of a special character, and, in view of the necessity of getting it through, the skilled staff will be more effective than people taken on temporarily.

COMMITTEES' REPORTS.

Mr. DAY: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider issuing cheap reprints of the May Economy Report and the Macmillan Report, with a view to their wider circulation?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider issuing the Report of the Macmillan Committee on Finance and Industry in a cheap edition instead of its present price of 5s., in view of its importance in the present economic situation?

Major ELLIOT: The prices of these publications have been fixed according to the standard scale for Stationery Office publications. Experience goes to show that sales would not be increased to any extent by lowering the price. I fear, therefore, that I should not be justified in adopting this suggestion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that great public interest is being taken in the matter dealt with in the Macmillan report, and could not the experiment be tried of issuing a cheap edition? [Interruption.] Have you read it yourselves?

FIVE PER CENT. WAR LOAN.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the extent to which 1929–47. War Loan is held by other than British subjects?

Major ELLIOT: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is not the Financial Secretary aware that on the Finance Bill, in reply to the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), he stated that
foreigners held the bulk of this War Loan? It is in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major ELLIOT: I doubt whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer committed himself to any such thing.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: You did.

Major ELLIOT: I may say quite definitely, I did not.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: You read the OFFICIAL REPORT.

NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Mr. TINKER: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total amount of national savings certificates owing to holders; how many of the old series have been exchanged for present certificates; and what is the number claimed for repayment?

Major ELLIOT: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The figures (up to the 31st August, 1931) are as follows in round numbers:

1. Total amount owing to holders, £500,000,000, of which £378,000,000 is principal and £122,000,000 accrued interest.
2. Total value of old series certificates (principal and accrued interest) exchanged for new series, £6,000,000. This figure excludes withdrawals for reinvestment, as to which information is not available.

As regards the last part of the question, I am not clear what are the figures which the hon. Member has in mind. The total repayments since the issue of certificates commenced has been £444,000,000 principal, and £131,000,000 interest.

NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. TINKER: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the present figure of the National Debt; what is the amount of the external debt; and what do we owe to the United States of America?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the Finance Accounts (House of Commons Paper, No. 106 of 1931). He will find details on pages 74 to 77.

Mr. TINKER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me where I can get a copy?

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member ought to be able to get it from the Library.

STATE PENSIONS.

Sir JAMES SEXTON: 70.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total amount paid in commutation of pensions to the descendants of deceased Army and Navy officers for the past 20 years; and what number of such descendants still remain on the pensions list contained in Finance Accounts?

Major ELLIOT: The total amount paid in commutation of pensions to the descendants of deceased Army and Navy officers for the past 20 years is £58,060 in commutation of a perpetual charge of £2,720 a year. Two such pensions still remain, one of them terminable at the decease of the present holder.

Sir J. SEXTON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman express any hope that this will be included in the Economy Bill?

INQUEST, ASENBY, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. TURTON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the coroner's inquest, on 7th August, on Wilfred Armstrong Rhodes, at Asenby, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and to the fact that during the interval of three days between the recovery of the body and the holding of the inquest the body was laid in a shed; and whether he will take steps to secure that all proper provision is made for the housing of the body during such interval, so as to prevent distress to the relatives and the neighbourhood?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): My attention had not been called to this case, but I have made inquiry and I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I understand that no other accommodation in the nature of a mortuary was available, and the Minister informs me that the circumstances are such that he does not feel justified in pressing the local authority to provide a public mortuary.

Mr. TURTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the inquest takes place as soon after the death as possible and not after a delay of three days, and also see whether it is possible that the body shall be housed in a more suitable place than a garage?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I will bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion.

DISTURBANCE. WESTMINSTER.

Mr. SIMMONS: 28.
asked the Home Secretary if he has now considered the statements supplied to him by Members of this House and by private individuals concerning the action of the police in dealing with the unemployed section of the crowd outside the House of Commons on Tuesday, 8th September; and if he can now make any further statement on the matter?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, I have made inquiry into each of the statements I have received. I find that three persons complained of injury at the police station and three persons were treated for minor injuries only at Westminster Hospital. One was found to be a case of hernia and, in another case, the patient had collapsed in the crowd and been trodden on. I cannot find that in any case the injuries can be attributed to improper use of force by the police. Certainly no one was injured by police batons, as no batons were drawn.

Mr. SIMMONS: Has the Home Secretary received a long letter from an ex-Member of this House—a lady of very high standing—making very serious charges, and will the Home Secretary consider very carefully the statements contained therein?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. Those statements have been considered in detail, and I have formed the opinion that the allegations are a good deal exaggerated. Those matters were probably before the magistrates court which dealt with the case.

Mr. SIMMONS: Is the Home Secretary aware that the lady in question is prepared to make a sworn statement?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Proceedings can be taken against the police. It is quite open to anyone to do that.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his investigations, came across any evidence that a deputation of the unemployed were thrown out by violence—[Interruption.]

MR. EDWARD GEORGE, HOVE.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 29.
asked the Home Secretary what action he proposes to take with regard to a letter addressed to him by Mr. Edward George, of 47, Brunswick Square, Hove?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not propose to take any action in this case.

PARKHURST PRISON (MEDICAL TREATMENT).

Sir C. RAWSON: 30.
asked the Home Secretary why permission is refused by the Governor of His Majesty's Prison at Parkhurst for a heart specialist to visit a prisoner, a previous patient, who is suffering from angina pectoris; and whether it is possible to make any exception?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The prisoner in question has been free from heart attacks during his sentence. He is receiving all necessary medical care and attention and, if necessary, the prison medical officer could call in a specialist. In these circumstances, there is no reason for taking any excxeptional course.

Sir C. RAWSON: As the cost of the specialist will not fall on the public funds, is there any reason why this man should not be examined by his own doctor who is quite familiar with his case.

Sir H. SAMUEL: If that were done in one case, it would have to be done in others, and there is no special reason why an exception should be made in this case.

Sir C. RAWSON: The only reason is life and death. Could not the right hon. Gentleman make an exception in this case?

Sir H. SAMUEL: This patient is not ill, and has not been subject to any heart attacks during his imprisonment. The medical officer is carefully watching the
case, and, as I have said, if there is any reason of life and death, a specialist will be called in.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman waiting for a heart attack?

PORTSMOUTH PRISON.

Captain W. G. HALL: 31.
asked the Home Secretary if the Prison Commissioners intend to keep Portsmouth prison as a closed prison; and whether, in the event of the Commissioners deciding to dispose of it, the city council will be given the option of acquiring it under special terms?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Although it is proposed to close Portsmouth prison, it is not intended at present to dispose of it. If, at some future date, it should appear that the prison can be disposed of, an offer of reconveyance would have to be made to the local authority, in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Prison Act, 1877.

Captain HALL: Will that apply also to Government, House and another house which is part of the same property?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

INSPECTORS AND OFFICERS (SALARIES).

Mr. ISAACS: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Education if the proposed reduction in the salaries of teachers will, apply also to the inspectors, administrative officers, and other staff employed by public education authorities?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Donald Maclean): Local education authorities have been informed in paragraph 3 of circular 1413, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, that in determining the amount of expenditure by authorities on the salaries and wages of their officers other than teachers which should be recognised for purposes of grant, the Board will have regard to the extent to which appropriate reductions in such salaries and wages have been made in the light of the reductions in the salaries of teachers and the various branches of the public service.

Mr. DUKES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many of these rates of wages have been the subject of negotiation by existing joint machinery and are actually post-dated month after month? Is he aware that what is now proposed would be regarded by the men's representatives as undue interference with the existing machinery and certainly would be resisted?

Sir D. MACLEAN: All facts of that kind have been taken into account and sympathetically considered.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is not that precisely the case with the teachers, and is there not a body to which they have looked to fix their salaries in precisely the same way?

Mr. BENJAMIN GARDNER: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether school medical officers are included among the officers other than teachers referred to in Circular 1413, issued 11th September, 1931; whether his Department has opened any negotiations with the British Medical Association in the matter of reductions of school medical officers' salaries; and, if so, whether he will communicate the result of any such negotiations to education authorities for the authorities' guidance, so that there may be a scale or scales of reductions generally acceptable and applicable throughout England and Wales?

Sir D. MACLEAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have not opened any negotiations with the British Medical Association in the matter of school medical officers' salaries, and the third part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. GARDNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this association is a very powerful trade union, and that it has successfully dictated to public authorities what salaries shall be paid to its members?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am aware of the power of all trade unions. If the association desires to make any representations to me, I shall be very glad to receive them.

Mr. GARDNER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this matter is left to public authorities, while in the case of the teachers there is an ultimatum?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Sir D. MACLEAN: I have no objection at all to answering the hon. Member's question. The answer is that they are employed by the local authorities, as, indeed, the teachers are, but in this case the local authorities have complete control of them.

GRANTS.

Mr. EDE: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education in how many cases during the five years prior to the issue of Circular 1413 the Board have made representations to, or withheld grants from, local education authorities in respect of the expenditure of such authorities on the salaries and wages of officers other than teachers?

Sir D. MACLEAN: The expenditure of local education authorities on administration, in common with all their other expenditure, is scrutinised by the Board with a view to ascertaining whether any part of it is not recognisable as expenditure in aid of which Parliamentary grants should be made; and when this is the case such expenditure is excluded in the calculation of the Board's grant. I regret that the Board have no available record of the number of cases in which they have made representations to, or withheld grants from, authorities in respect of their expenditure on administration.

Mr. EDE: Is not the reason for the last part of the answer the fact that this paragraph is absolutely without precedent, the Board hitherto having regarded the fixing of these salaries and wages as a matter within the competence of the local authority with which they have had no concern?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I will see whether the. Board may not start a record of the kind which the hon. Member needs.

PROVISION OF MEALS.

Mr. TINKER: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of local education authorities who have put into operation the feeding of necessitous school children; and the latest figures of the number of children being fed?

Sir D. MACLEAN: In the week ending 18th July, 134 local education authorities made provision for the feeding of school
children. The number of children receiving meals was approximately 154,500, of whom 101,500 were necessitous children receiving meals free of charge.

Mr. LAWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether or not there is to be a cut in the amount granted by the Board to the local authorities who are carrying on this work?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise on this question.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to meet the anticipated increase in the number of necessitous children following the policy which the Government are pursuing?

Sir D. MACLEAN: That question is being very carefully watched.

Mr. LEACH: Arising out of the original reply, can the right hon. Gentleman say how many authorities have refused to put the Act into operation?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question, also, does not arise.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. MANDER: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether teachers' pensions are to be based on the present rate of salaries before the 10 per cent. reduction or after it has taken place; and if the teachers' treatment on that matter differs from that of the police?

Sir D. MACLEAN: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer, of which I am sending him a copy, to a question asked by the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman) on the 16th instant. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative. The terms of engagement and conditions of pension of the two classes differ materially in a number of respects.

DRAINAGE, ISLINGTON.

Mr. MONTAGUE: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that part of the drainage system of Islington dates back to the year of the Indian Mutiny; that the sewer under Caledonian Road runs into a connection of the Fleet
River draining a large part of North London, with the result that in times of heavy rain there occurs a practical stoppage of outlet for Islington drainage at the King's Cross junction; that recent floods have occasioned serious hardship and loss to residents of West Islington; and whether he will make representations on the subject to the appropriate local authorities?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I am aware of the circumstances, but am informed that it is not correct that there has been a practical stoppage of outlet at the King's Cross junction. The London County Council, with whom the borough council have communicated, are fully alive to the position. They have a scheme for adding to the storm relief sewers of London, and have already spent over £3,500,000 on the most urgent work. The scheme includes proposals for improving the drainage of Islington.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Is the Minister aware that these floods have been frequent ever since 1895, and nothing has been done?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is correct to say that nothing has been done. I understand that improvements have been made from time to time. It is, however, impossible to provide that there will never be overcharged sewers in cases of exceptional floods.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Can the Minister say whether the construction of a system of relief sewers is one of the matters which will be delayed by the London County Council in accordance with what is believed to be necessary in view of the economic situation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I cannot.

RATING RELIEF, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.

Mr. PERRY: 43.
asked the Minister of Health the estimated annual relief to owners of agricultural land and others in the county of Northamptonshire by the de-rating of agricultural land and buildings under the Local Government Act, 1929?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is estimated that, but for the de-rating of agricultural hereditaments, the amount of rates paid
in respect of those hereditaments during the year to the 31st March, 1930, in the Administrative County of Northampton, would have been about £79,000. This relief was, of course, afforded to the occupiers of these hereditaments.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) ACT.

Mr. PERRY: 44.
asked the Minister of Health if the operation of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1931, is to be suspended or restricted as part of the Government's economy policy; and, if so, what steps will be taken to meet the need for more and cheaper houses in rural areas?

Mr. GOULD: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to carry out the housing programme of building 40,000 agricultural cottages during 1931–32, as provided for under the Rural Workers Act, 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no intention of repealing the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act, 1931, to which I assume the questions of the hon. Members to refer. Applications from rural district councils under this Act are still coming in, and, in accordance with Sub-section (3) of Section 1, all such applications will be eligible for consideration provided that they are made before the 30th November next. In accordance with the Act, applications will be first considered by the committee appointed by my predecessor, of which my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General is chairman.

Mr. PERRY: Are we to understand that the Government intend to proceed with the carrying on of this work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. PERRY: Thank you.

Mr. GOULD: Will the Minister convey to the chairman of the Advisory Committee under the Act the necessity for carrying out the maximum scheme of 100,000 houses suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood)?

Mr. PERRY: 48.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of houses that have been built by each rural district council in Northamptonshire since 1921, and the number of houses re-
conditioned in each rural district area, under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sending the hon. Member such information as is available.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH CIRCULAR.

Mr. EDE: 51.
asked the Minister of Health if local authorities are intended to read the penultimate paragraph of Minister of Health Circular 1222 in the light of the statements in paragraph 3 of Circular 1413 of the Board of Education?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Paragraph 3 of Circular 1413 of the Board of Education is concerned only with grants in respect of the educational service. I see nothing in its terms which is at variance with the penultimate paragraph of Circular 1222.

Mr. EDE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as one who has had great experience on a large local government authority, whether it will be possible to make a different scale of reduction in the education department of a city or county and not to make the same reductions in the highways and other departments of the city or county?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I am called upon to express an opinion. Local authorities will have to make such arrangements as they think fit.

Mr. EDE: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is obviously something for which the Minister is not responsible.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 52.
asked the Minister of Health how many approved societies have included in their schemes of additional benefit particular benefits in respect of special treatment for rheumatic diseases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: 515 approved societies and branches have included in their schemes of additional benefits the particular additional benefit No. 16 under which special treatment for rheumatic diseases would be possible.

POOR LAW INSTITUTION, PICKERING (CONVERSION).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 53.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the fact that the North Riding County Council has decided to spend £6,000 on the conversion of the old workhouse in Pickering into a children's home; and whether he proposes to sanction this action?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received no application for my sanction to the expenditure mentioned in the question.

IMPORTED MILK.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that certain distributors are purchasing milk imported from the Continent in the form of ice blocks, he will state whether the source of supply is subjected to the same tests as the milk produced in England; and, if not, whether he is prepared to take the necessary steps to protect English farmers from this kind of competition?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The laws as to adulteration apply equally to liquid and frozen milk and to imported and home-produced milk, with the added safeguard in the case of imported milk that it is subject to sampling at the time of importation. The regulations also require that imported milk should be free from tubercle bacilli and should not contain more than 100,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre. I am advised that these conditions are at least the equivalent of those which apply to English milk.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY.

Mr. SINKINSON: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amounts paid annually in dividends in the tobacco industry of Great Britain for the years 1913 to 1930, respectively?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: There is no official information on this subject.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (TEXTILE SECTION).

Mr. ROMERIL: 82.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the depressed state of the textile industries, some general
remission can be made of the charges for stands at the White City?

Sir HILTON YOUNG (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As the hon. Member will be aware, the British Industries Fair is organised on a self-supporting basis, and any reduction in the charges for stands would result in a charge upon public funds. It will consequently be appreciated that under the present financial conditions no reduction in the charge for stands can be considered.

BRITISH GOODS.

Major CARVER: 89.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government proposes to set on foot any national organisation to popularise the need for buying British goods as against all foreign imported articles; and, if not, whether he will consider the establishment of such an organisation without delay?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The Press and other agencies are already doing a great deal to impress on the people of this country the need for a whole-hearted response to the appeal recently made on this matter by the Prime Minister, and will, I am sure, continue their activities in this respect. My hon. and gallant Friend will also remember that the work of the Empire Marketing Board is designed to foster the purchase of the goods and products of the Empire.

BLIND PERSON'S PENSION (MR. J. W. SMITH).

Mr. GROVES: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will inquire into the circumstances attending the refusal of a blind person's pension to Mr. J. W. Smith, 42, Alnwick Road, E.16, by the local committee on the ground that he was already in receipt of a pension under the contributory scheme?

Major ELLIOT: I am having inquiries made into this case, and I will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as they are completed.

RIVER DON (FLOODING).

Mr. DAY: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to take
any steps for the improvement of the banks of the River Don, in Yorkshire, with a view to avoiding a recurrence of the flooding which has occurred in certain areas of that county?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The responsibility for initiating and carrying out remedial works of the character referred to by the hon. Member lies not with me but with the drainage authorities concerned.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over 1,000 people had to leave their homes through this flooding?

Mr. T. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the flooding which has taken place, urge drainage authorities to get on with this work?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that drainage authorities are considering this problem, and I have not approached them specially.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

DRAINAGE GRANTS.

Mr. DAY: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what has now been decided with regard to continuing the grants to landlords in aid of schemes of field drainage and other works for agricultural purposes; and whether the necessary instructions have been issued to the county councils concerned?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As announced in the White Paper on national economy, Cmd. 3952, it has been decided to discontinue grants to landowners in aid of schemes of field drainage, water supply and claying of fen lands. The necessary instructions have been issued to county councils.

Mr. DAY: Have all the county councils been notified?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Notices have been issued.

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 76.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is his intention with regard to the balance of about £20,000 granted partly by the Government and partly collected from allotment holders for supplies provided?

Major MILNER: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that there is a balance of £20,000, including £15,000 paid for supplies by allotment holders themselves, to the credit of the allotments scheme under the Land (Utilisation) Act; and whether it is the intention of the Government to use that sum to advance the allotment movement?

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of the unused balance in conection with the allotments scheme for the unemployed; and whether this fund will be available for the assistance of unemployed allotment holders in the coming season?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Members to my full statement on this subject in the Debate on the Adjournment on Tuesday last.

HOME-GROWN FOODSTUFFS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what measures are in contemplation to increase supplies of home-produced foodstuffs during the coming winter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In the ordinary course of nature the supply of home-produced foodstuffs in this country during the coming winter would not now be amenable to any Government action, but if the hon. and gallant Member has any suggestions to make I shall be pleased to consider them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered steps to encourage an increase of ploughing for winter sowing as one example?

TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Mr. LAWTHER: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is prepared to meet the Tithe Payers' Association with a view to discussing their problems and coming to an agreement on the subject?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I am quite satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by such a meeting.

Mr. LAWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the homes and stock of farmers have been sold in order to meet the charges, and moreover that even to-day that fact has entailed the absence of a very heavy supporter of the Government, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward)?

NEW FOREST (GRAZING RIGHTS).

Mr. FREEMAN: 79.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether there are any regulations or conditions attached to the grazing rights of the commoners in the New Forest that provide for the protection and care of the ponies of these commoners, or which in any way concern the welfare of the animals allowed to graze there?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): I have been asked to reply. Under a by-law, made by the Verderers in pursuance of the New Forest Act, 1877, to prevent the spread of contagious or infectious disease it is an offence not to exclude or remove from the forest any animal infected or coming from a place infected with a contagious or infectious disease. Under a bylaw made by the Forestry Commissioners in pursuance of the Forestry Act, 1927, it is an offence to chase or allow dogs to worry or chase any animal in the forest.

POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE PUBLICITY).

Mr. ATTLEE: 84.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is continuing to utilise the services of the advisory committee on telephone publicity established by the late Government; whether this committee has met since he has been appointed; and whether he proposes to make any change in the policy previously announced in the matter of telephone development?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The advisory committee on telephone publicity has already held a meeting under my chairmanship and a further meeting is to be held shortly. I am in cordial agreement with the policy of taking active steps to promote telephone development, but I must, of course, in the present financial circumstances, reserve decision on specific proposals until I have had a fuller opportunity of reviewing them.

AFFORESTATION.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 80.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the number and acreage of areas
afforested during each of the last 10 years, and what under the economy proposals the acreage will be during the current year and next year?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The answer to the first part of the question contains a long table of figures which I will, with the permission of the House, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The acreage to be afforested by the Forestry Commissioners during the next two seasons is not yet definitely fixed, but it is expected to be not less than 20,000 acres each season.

Following is the table:


Season.
Number of areas afforested by the Forestry Commissioners.
Acreage of areas afforested by the Forestry Commissioners.


1920–21
37
5,687


1921–22
51
9,521


1922–23
61
10,101


1923–24
77
10,191


1924–25
96
14,670


1925–26
112
17,935


1926–27
124
23,261


1927–28
142
23,161


1928–29
152
22,472


1929–30
162
24,721

COAL REFINING (LEHMANN PROCESS).

Mr, T. SMITH: 85.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the inquiry into the Lehmann process of coal refining has been completed; and, if so, whether he can make a statement with regard to the conclusions arrived at?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Foot): A demonstration of the Lehmann process was recently arranged in Germany at which an officer of the Fuel Research Division of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research was present. Certain tests on German coals were carried out and a report on the tests has been prepared. Some additional information is being obtained from Germany and until this is received it is not considered desirable to make any statement as to the conclusions contained in the report.

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Member say that when the results have been arrived
at they will be made public, and can he say whether tests will be made of British coal?

Mr. FOOT: I cannot say whether they will be made public. If the results are satisfactory, we shall be glad to make them available to the hon. Member.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Dr. PHILLIPS:

83. To ask the Postmaster-General if he has had any objections to the rearrangement of the Saturday deliveries of the post in Sunderland; and whether he is aware that the arrangement has met with the approval of the borough council as well as the postmen, who are now able to have a free Saturday afternoon, and that there is a general desire that the arrangement be continued.

Dr. MARION PHILLIPS: May I not ask Question 83?

Mr. SPEAKER: Question No. 83 was the fourth question on the Paper in the name of the hon. Lady.

Dr. PHILLIPS: I have not asked them. As I have not asked the other three questions, may I ask Question 83?

Mr. SPEAKER: I gave the hon. Member every opportunity of asking them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FOREIGN TRAWLERS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to state what action he proposes to take to make illegal the operations of foreign trawlers in Scottish waters that are closed to such fishing by British fishing vessels?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Archibald Sinclair): As indicated in my reply on Tuesday last to the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, this matter is receiving my close attention, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman when he was a back bencher was very anxious to get this matter settled. Can he now tell the House what action he is taking to have the matter brought to an early conclusion?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member may be assured that I am not less anxious now than I was before, but this is a matter which affects not only my own Department but other Departments. I would suggest to the hon. Member that the Government of which he was a supporter took some years without coming to any decision on this question. Therefore, I hope that he will allow me a little time.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman may be summed up in the words of the old Irish song, "It may be for years; it may be for ever"?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: It has been for years with other Governments.

HIRE-PURCHASE SYSTEM.

Mr. MACLEAN: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received the report of the committee set up to inquire into the working of the hire-purchase system in Scotland; if so, whether he can state to the House what are the recommendations of the committee; whether he is prepared to put them into operation; and whether he proposes to publish the report?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Arrangements are being made for early publication of the report, when it will be available to hon. Members and to the general public. The recommendations of the committee will receive my careful consideration.

Mr. MACLEAN: As soon as the right hon. Gentleman has given this matter his consideration, when will he be likely to give information to the House of the steps that he proposes to take, seeing the number of people who are being unjustly treated in Scotland by being sent to prison?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I shall make a statement as soon as my consideration of the question is concluded.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take action now to stop this practice of imprisoning men in respect of hire-purchase, by making those who are responsible for the people being put into prison pay more for the cost of maintaining them in prison?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I will certainly consider that point.

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES (WAGES).

Captain W. G. HALL: 90.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, on reconsideration, it has been decided to withdraw the proposal to reduce by 2s. the wages of the War Department industrial employés?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir.

Captain HALL: 92.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, on reconsideration, it has been decided to withdraw the proposal to reduce by 2s. the wages of Admiralty industrial employés?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Austen Chamberlain): No, Sir. The matter has now been settled and orders have been issued to make the reduction effective from the 1st October.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the G.I.C. met on Friday and that the dice was moulded against them, and they decided that the cut should be put into operation without further discussion?

MANCHURIA.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 91.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement concerning the position in Manchuria?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Captain Eden): Since the 19th of September Mukden and other towns on or near the South Manchurian Railway have been occupied by Japanese troops. An appeal has been made to the League of Nations by the Chinese Government, and at a special meeting of the council held on the 22nd of September it was decided to appeal to both the Chinese and Japanese Governments to abstain from any action
which might aggravate the situation or prejudice a pacific settlement, and to ask them to seek, in consultation with their representatives at Geneva, means to allow the two countries to proceed immediately to the withdrawal of their respective troops without compromising the safety of the lives or property of the nationals of the two countries. Telegrams were addressed to the Chinese and Japanese Governments to that effect.

HEREFORD POLICE FORCE (EX-SERGEANT PRICE).

Mr. FRANK OWEN: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary if he has now made a decision to grant an inquiry into the circumstances in which Sergeant Price was required to resign from the Hereford City Police Force?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I have had this matter under consideration, and I have come to the decision to appoint a tribunal under the Police Appeals Act, 1927, to hear the appeal of ex-Sergeant Price against the decision of the Hereford Watch Committee that he should be required to resign.

Mr. OWEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the inquiry will be held and if the proceedings will be public?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The inquiry will be held within a short interval, but I cannot say the exact date. The question whether it should be public or not is for those who hold the inquiry to decide. I shall make it clear that as far as I am concerned there is no objection to it being in public.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman certify the right of the officer to have legal assistance?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point, because it has reference to the appointment of the tribunal itself?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Major ELLIOT: I wish to make a very brief explanation to the House and an apology to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) and the House in connec-
tion with one figure which I gave last night. In response to an interjection from the hon. Member for Plaistow asking for the Income Tax figures for 1913, I misread the heading of the appropriate table and quoted the figures for 1918. The correct comparative figures are: For an income of £700, £48 2s. 6d. as at present proposed and £23 12s. 6d. in 1913; and for an income of £500, £12 in 1913 as against £15 proposed to-day. I may say that what I had in mind was the range of incomes from £200 to £400, on all of which the Income Tax in 1913 was higher than that proposed to-day. My attention was called to the matter by my officials and I resolved, in view of the possibilities of grave confusion if an inaccurate figure went out under official authority, to give the correct year in the OFFICIAL REPORT and to call the attention of the House to the point at the earliest possible opportunity. I now do so, and apologise to the House and the hon. Member for Plaistow for having inadvertently misled them. I may add that the figures will be given in full for all ranges of income, in a White Paper which is being issued in a day or two in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton).

Mr. THORNE: I am extremely obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for making the correction.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what business will be taken next week, and can he say when the Government hope to bring to an end this part of the Session?

Mr. S. BALDWIN: In regard to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, a statement will be made as soon as we can say positively when the business will be concluded. I am not in a position to make that statement to-day. The business for next week will be:
Monday: National Economy Bill, Committee (3rd Allotted Day).
Tuesday: National Economy Bill, remaining stages to be concluded by; 7.30 p.m. Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates for the Ministry of Labour and the Road Fund.
Wednesday: Finance (No. 2) Bill, Committee (1st Allotted Day).
Thursday: Finance (No. 2) Bill, Committee (2nd Allotted Day); Report stage of Supplementary Estimates.
Friday: Finance (No. 2) Bill, remaining stages.
On any day, when time permits, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to give notice that I shall repeat the latter part of my question on Monday.

Mr. HOFFMAN: May I ask whether any date has been decided for the General Election?

Mr. BALDWIN: Not yet.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Amendments to—

Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL ECONOMY BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 22nd September.]

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to make Orders in Council for effecting certain econoniias.)

Amendment proposed [22nd September): In page 2, line 7, to leave out paragraph (b).—[11fiss Lawrence.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Mr. McKINLAY: I want to resume by asking one or two specific questions of the Minister of Labour and the representative of the Scottish Office. On Tuesday night I said that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had misled the Committee by saying that certain figures were not available when it must have been within his knowledge that the Minister of Health a fortnight previously had said that 500,000 persons on transitional benefit would be affected by the 1st November of this year. That statement was made to representatives of local authorities at a meeting held at the Ministry of Health, and we are entitled to know, in view of the enormous savings which must come to the Exchequer, how that figure was arrived at. We are told that the saving under the head of transitional benefit will be £10,000,000. This is not a shot in the dark; the Government must have some figures upon which that estimate is based. It must be due to one of two things, either that the amount of benefit available for unemployed persons is to be substantially reduced or that considerable numbers will not submit themselves to the destitution test. I want to have an answer to that question. In my own constituency the bulk of the men are employed in the shipbuilding industry and immediately this Bill comes into operation 2,500 persons at present on transitional benefit will have to submit themselves to the Poor Law test. I know that several hundreds of them will not submit to that test, and I believe the Govern-
ment desire that they should not submit themselves.
I have no objection to applying a means test, but why should the Government submit people to a destitution test of which the majority of hon. Members opposite are totally ignorant. I know; I speak with some feeling in this matter, from bitter experience. Will our countrymen and women have to lay bare their souls and give an account of the gifts in kind which they may receive from distant relatives in order to arrive at the sum to be made available? The destitution test involves all these matters. Will the pension of aged persons be taken into account? Will the aged father and mother be called upon to pay for the sustenance of a married son or daughter? That is the Poor Law test; the means from every available source must be taken into consideration. I want to know whether any sums received either under the contributory or non-contributory pension scheme will be taken into consideration? Has the Scottish Office already issued an instruction dealing with these tests? Take the position of Glasgow, where the maximum amount paid in cases of destitution, irrespective of the number of dependants, is £2 per week. There are in my own constituency houses in which 14 persons are living, but it does not matter whether the number is 14 or 20, the maximum amount paid to these persons is £2, and every conceivable donation in kind is taken into consideration in determining the amount.
And what is to happen to persons who are on transitional benefit at the moment? It is a fair interpretation of the position to say that any insured person who has exhausted the right to standard benefit will automatically, before he receives any further payment, become subject to the means test. What is to happen in the meantime? It takes four weeks for an Employment Exchange to determine whether a person is normally employed in an insurable occupation or not, and during that time they receive no benefit. Will the public assistance committee pay these persons the equivalent of the Employment Exchange rate or not? And after they have submitted themselves to this test, during the time that the Employment Exchange is tracing the record of the claimant to satisfy themselves that they
have drawn 26 weeks' benefit, what is to become of the dependants in the interim?
4.0.p.m.
What is going to happen in semi-rural areas? It is all very well in a city like Glasgow, where you have a scale of able-bodied outdoor relief available, but in the county districts in Scotland here is no scale of able-bodied relief they simply offer the workhouse to persons who throw themselves on the funds of a local authority. Will there be a scale drawn up in these areas? Will these authorities be compelled to fix a scale? In districts like Stranraer and Wigtown, where no able-bodied outdoor relief is paid, who is going to determine the scale? Are we to go back to the Tory policy of 4½ years ago, when local authorities were only permitted to pay able-bodied relief on a fixed scale of payments dictated by the Scottish Board of Health? Again, who is going to pay for the additional staff of 500 or 600 investigators who will be employed in the city of Glasgow? These are serious considerations so far as we are concerned. The saving under this heading is a saving of £10,000,000. I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department has issued any instructions yet, or whether they are likely to issue instructions laying down definitely the scales of relief to be made available, because at the moment, while unemployment benefit will be reduced to 15s. 3d. it is a certainty that scales of relief will be reduced at the same time. Some people may think that it is gross exaggeration to say that every conceivable circumstance is taken into consideration by those committees. I am not blaming the public assistance committees or the complexion of those committees, but they are not going to be masters so far as this particular order is concerned, because power is asked
for imposing duties on local authorities in connection with the administration of any such service.
It does not matter what the elected representatives on the local authorities wish. No, this is something imposed from outside, and by a Government who have no authority from the electors of this country. We had a speech on Tuesday night from the hon. and reverend seignior who represents the Ashford Division (Mr. Kedward). He is
quite enthusiastic about the destitution test as something to which everyone ought to aspire. I want to ask the reverend seignior—I am sorry that he is not in his place—as he has paid lip-service to the lowly Nazarene, if he would stick closer to spiritual things and less to material things. [Interruption.] Some of us have been nurtured in Scripture, and I, for one, object to anyone using his public position for the purpose of creating the impression that the destitution test is a thing that we should enthusiastically embrace. I will tighten my belt and go under the destitution test, provided those opposite also go under it. [Interruption.] In Glasgow, the public assistance committee pays a portion of the rent of distressed persons. I want to ask the Tinder-Secretary whether the sum of money paid by the public assistance committee will be taken into consideration as a sum paid towards the landlords, who are drawing exorbitant rents? Will such a sum be taken into consideration in determining the amount of relief that is made available?
I have asked the Under-Secretary to tell us exactly what instructions there are to be. This inflicts a cut both ways—the Gold Standard and rising commodity prices, a blessing which, last week, was a curse. The Prime Minister—"Ah, my friends"; how we on these benches know that phrase—will no longer warble "The Road to the Isles" on Lossiemouth moor. He is now practising "The Londonderry Air." He makes an appeal to us because of a fall in the cost of living, proving that we are 1½ per cent. better off than we were two years ago. I want to tell the Prime Minister, and those who think with him, that had there been a fall of 40 per cent., the unemployed man and the unemployed woman would never have appreciated the benefit for untold years, because, when all is said and done, the right hon. Gentleman is acting on the assumption that they were living in comfort before the fall in the cost of living took place. He says that it is not the time to argue when a man is overboard; that you do not argue when you are going to throw him a life-belt. No, but you are not expected, at least, to join with the pirates who threw the man overboard, and he is possibly not aware that millions of our class have been overboard for 10 years, some of them submerged to drowning point, and the Prime Minister, with his two quarter-
masters, is joining up with the pirates who threw them overboard, without even having the decency to consult those who put him on the bridge.
The Navy showed their teeth, the teachers showed their fangs, and the unemployed—hon. Members may smile, but if they believe in the policy they are pursuing, let us have an election now. Let us have an election on the issue as to whether human values are of much more consideration than balance sheet values, and if you give us the opportunity to have, not an intriguing election, not a stunt election, not a coupon election, but an election on the straight issue as to whether the human family have a right to live, or whether they are to die the death of a thousand cuts.

The CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that this has no bearing on the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. McKINLAY: I have no desire to tire the Committee, but I could read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the previous Debate to show that I am keeping closer to the question than the hon. Gentleman who spoke in reply for half an hour.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will continue the good course he claims to have pursued on the last occasion.

Mr. McKINLAY: I had only two minutes to keep in order then. I am only drawing attention to the fact that I listened to the right hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who spoke for half an hour and said nothing, and said it very eloquently. I want to appeal to the Government even now. Organised persons have been able to make the Government run away from their original position. Is it because the unemployed are unorganised that the Government ask for these powers? Quite candidly, I, for one, do not believe in handing over such powers as are asked for in this paragraph to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edghaston (Mr. Chamberlain), who, on a previous occasion, stooped even to pinch the babies' milk.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): This Amendment was discussed al some length the other night.
There is another Amendment following it on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr.Lawson). Our time to-day is limited by the Guillotine. I rise, therefore, to answer some of the criticisms which have been made in order that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street shall have a full opportunity of moving his Amendment. In the course of our discussion the other evening there were two main criticisms which were levelled against the Government's proposals, and I want to deal with them as fairly and frankly as I can. It was said, first of all, that it is harsh, that it is unfair, that is unconscionable to impose a needs test at all. That was one criticism. The other criticism was, that if you have the needs test, the inquiry into means should not be undertaken by public assistance committees, but should be made by some other body under the Ministry of Labour. I want to deal, if I may, with both of those points, and I will deal with the second, for the sake of convenience, first, that is, the suggestion that seine other body should be deputed to deal with this question.
If I may say so at the beginning, I do not propose to refer at all to what was said to have been decided by the last Cabinet, the allegations and the denials, nor do I intend to enter into that controversy at all, because hon. Members, I frankly admit, are entitled to have from his Government a justification of the course they are pursuing, and I propose to deal with this matter from that point of view. With regard to the question as to whether it is possible or desirable for the Ministry of Labour, assuming there is a needs test, to carry it out, I will say at once that, in my view, and for the reasons which I will give, I think it is most undesirable to put that work upon the Ministry of Labour at all, and I will tell the Committee why. This point was first of all considered by the May Committee, and because I agree with what they said on this point, and it will shorten my argument, I will read what the May Committee said in paragraph 381:
Government Departments have not the machinery for inquiring into personal circumstances and to set up special machinery for this purpose would be a wasteful duplication of the reconstructed machinery now operating tinder the county and county borough councils as public assistance
authorities. At the same time we recognise the strength of the feeling against any immediate outward and visible differentiation against those who have fallen out of insurance. Subject to the assessment of need by the public assistance authority we suggest that it might be possible, in the case of an intermediate class of persons who are still suitable for employment to arrange for any necessary allowances to be paid by the Employment Exchanges as agents for the local authority.
So far as the Ministry of Labour is concerned, what the May Committee said there is perfectly true, and I am sure it will be supported by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. They have neither the premises nor the officers or experience to deal with this matter. But there is another reason which, to me, is even more paramount, and it is this. I am most anxious to develop the other side of the work of the Ministry of Labour. I am most anxious, for instance, that there should be no interference with the placing work of the Ministry. If I may, I would offer a word of congratulation to my predecessor. The placing work of the Ministry of Labour is proceeding very fast indeed, and in the year ended in August last nearly 2,000,000 places were found through the instrumentality of the Ministry. Therefore I am anxious not to place any further burden upon the machinery of the Ministry so as to interfere with that work. That is one reason. Another reason is that I am most anxious not to interfere with at all, but to assist, if I can, the great help that is given by what I may call the industrial guidance of juveniles. That is a very important part of the work of the Ministry, and I want to develop it. To impose on the machinery of the Ministry of Labour any further burden would necessarily tend to interfere with and impede the work in that most useful direction.
There is another reason to which I attach considerable importance. It seems to me that all of us should strive to remove the reproach which one hears on every hand that the Ministry of Labour as such is developing into a mere dole-paying instrument. I want to improve and increase both the dignity and the prestige of the Ministry, and I cannot do that better or more effectively than by removing from it the reproach that the Ministry and our Exchanges are
nothing more than offices for the payment of the dole. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the Committee will agree that it is vitally important to show both to the country and to the world that this insurance does not mean the dole. We have heard the word "stigma" used more than once; it was used by the hon. Lady who opened this Debate. I would like to remove the stigma and the reproach that this insurance scheme is indistinguishable from relief.
It is a very significant thing that in other countries—I have in mind America particularly, but what I am saving applies to many other countries where they have a problem of unemployment which may he even more serious than our own—they have refused to follow our system of unemployment insurance, because they say, "Well, we at any rate are not going to render ourselves liable to the charge under which you are suffering, namely, that your unemployment relief is nothing more than an indiscriminate dole." It has been said that NN hat we are doing is framed on the Poor Law. In my view we are doing exactly the opposite. What we are doing is that we are saying to the public assistance committees that they will be asked to assess the needs of these classes of persons.

Miss LAWRENCE: That is the whole point. How are they to assess means other than by Poor Law criteria without the aid of any regulations of the Ministry?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is one of the points with which I shall deal. First of all there is a difference between Poor Law administration and what we are proposing now. The needs will be assessed by the public assistance committees, but the money will be paid by the Exchequer at the Exchanges. If a man has a transitional qualification he gets it, subject to the assessment of his needs, but as a right, which is a wholly different thing from the Poor Law. There is no question of a loan, there is no question of test work, and there is no question of payment in kind. Up to the amount of the limitation which the Statute will allow, he gets the money paid at the Exchange in exactly the same way as in the case of ordinary benefits.

Mr. BEN RILEY: For the purpose of assessment will the unemployed man have to attend before the public assistance committee?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, of course, he will, if it is necessary.

Miss LAWRENCE: In assessing the need of the person, will it be the duty to charge all chargeable relatives who are living within or without the house? Will it be, as under the Poor Law, for the committee to estimate the household income? Will there be any appeal to the Minister?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is the question which the hon. Lady put before and with which I propose to deal. I say at once that they will do, with regard to these people who come to them from the Ministry of Labour, as they do now —

HON. MEMBERS: The Poor Law taint!

Mr. LANSBURY: We are really very much obliged to the Minister for his courtesy in giving way to questioners. The whole question is whether these people are to be subject to the destitution test of the boards of guardians?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Of course, I do not accept the word "destitution" What I am endeavouring to explain is that the public assistance committees will deal with those who come to them from the Employment Exchanges in the same way as they deal —[Intterruption.]

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: There are rather complicated questions being asked, and is would be better if the Minister were allowed to answer them.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would remind the Committee that there are persons who at some time unfortunately have to go to public assistance committees and are not insured at all. I refer to people like agricultural labourers. What I have said with regard to the proposed procedure has been already stated by myself in answer to questions during the course of the last two or three days. What I have said is not new, nor should it come as a surprise to the Committee.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Take the case of a man with £200 in War Loan. He has an income from that of £10 a year as interest. In some cases the Poor Law authorities assess the man's income as £10; in other cases they take a different course. Is the Minister going to take any steps to regulate the man's income; that is to say, is he going to stipulate that he must sell off that investment down to a particular figure, or is he going to calculate merely the man's income from this interest? Trade unions pay 10s. a week to men in large numbers of cases. In certain cases the Poor Law authorities allow the man half off, and in other cases they allow nothing. Does the Minister propose to issue any regulations which will make the position uniform throughout the country?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It is not my intention to issue regulations in the direction indicated. With regard to the hon. Member's first question, as I said before, the public assistance committees will follow exactly the same practice and procedure as now, and take into account such matters as they take into account now. When we come to the question whether the test is justifiable or not I have to say this: It is very often forgotten that I am administering a compulsory contributory system. In such a system it is clear that not only have I to consider the rights of those who are unemployed, but I have to consider also the rights of those who are employed. The Minister of Labour, as head of this Department, is not a mere automatic distributor of compassionate grants. He is the trustee for an insurance fund, and he has to administer practically as a trustee, having regard to the rights of all three parties to the insurance.
It is easy to see how the present situation arose. In the last Parliament the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), with persistence and very often with eloquence, forced the Labour Government to make concessions which were altogether incompatible with a contributory system of insurance. The result was to bring this contributory scheme very nearly to bankruptcy, and by borrowing during a succession of years to obscure the real effect of what was being done. We have come to the conclusion, and about this there is no doubt at all, that borrowing must stop. Borrow-
ing henceforth, therefore, is not a remedy or a means of alleviating the position at all. Having decided to stop borrowing we have been compelled to ask for increased contributions and for cuts in the benefit. I hope hon. Gentlemen believe me when I say that it is no more congenial to me to ask for these increased contributions and cuts of benefit than it would be to any of them. We have been compelled to make great demands upon the contributors and upon those who receive benefits under this scheme.

Mr. LAWSON: We are discussing ordinary benefit as well as transitional benefit. The Minister is speaking as if these transitional people were a charge on the unemployment fund. They are not. They are a charge on the Exchequer.

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is the question with which I am dealing. This is a contributory fund. It is none the less true that with a contributory fund you must consider the rights of all those who contribute just as you consider the rights of those who are out of work and drawing benefit. May I put it in this way. Let the Committee realise what we have been doing. We have been fast drifting into a position in which large numbers of unemployed have been paid benefit under the name of transitional benefit without any real insurance qualification and without any of the checks of local administration which are applied to those who ask for outdoor relief. Therefore, this particular class is being treated in a way which seems to he unfair, not only to those who have contributed to the Insurance Fund, but to those who ask for outdoor relief, because you are not submitting them, either to any proper insurance test or to the check of local administration.
It may be a surprise to the Committee —it certainly was so to me when I got the figures—to find, even now, how many men and women there are who have drawn no benefit at all, since they first came into insurance. We have to consider their position. A large number also have only drawn very small amounts of benefit for very short periods. I propose to give the figures as they were given to me. These figures are the result of an inquiry which my predecessor instituted and of course I received them when I came into office. I admit, of
course, that 1931 has been a terrible year for unemployment and no doubt these figures are to some extent qualified by the figures for 1931, but for the two years 1929 and 1930, two-thirds of the persons insured drew no benefit at all, and at the end of 1930, two-fifths of the males and half the females had drawn no benefit at all since they came into insurance. Of those who have drawn benefit, in very many cases, as the figures show, they have drawn it only for comparatively short periods of time.
I formed the impression when I was at the Ministry previously, and it is confirmed now, that it is impossible to justify a system under which a man who has paid his contributions week in and week out, may be living in the same street with or even next door to someone else who is getting precisely the same benefit having paid practically nothing at all. It is impossible to ask those people who are contributing to go on contributing every week while perhaps their neighbours, without any insurance qualification whatever, are drawing the same benefit and you are imposing no test whatever as to their means. It seems to me that in fairness to those who pay contributions you cannot say that those who pay no contributions are to receive the same amount without any test as to whether they need it or not. That is my justification for the proposal which we make with regard to these people, namely, that there shall be an inquiry as to whether they are in need or not.
On the day before yesterday the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) described the position of the county in which he lives and, as he is an ex-chairman of the Glamorgan County Council, I know that he speaks with knowledge and authority on that subject. I wish very much I could say that the dark and gloomy picture which he drew was overdrawn, but I am not in a position to say so and I do not say so. He was naturally anxious, however, to know how our proposals were going to affect his county, and what I am now going to say in answer to him will answer a good many of the questions raised in the course of this Debate. He was afraid that there would be a charge on
the rates for additional out-relief in consequence of our proposal. That is not so. In so far as these people would have been entitled to transitional benefit in the past, they will now be entitled to draw transitional payments of whatever amount, after investigating their needs, the public assistance authorities decide, up to the limits of the benefit, and those amounts will be paid by the Ministry of Labour.
The second point about which he asked was also put to me by the hon. Member for Gorbals. It is as to whether any additional administrative expenditure which is necessary and approved for the purpose of the inquiry and assessment will be reimbursed to the public assistance committees by the Ministry. The answer is that it will. The third point is that the principles and practice under which applications for transitional payments are investigated and assessed will be the same as those at present in force in regard to applications from unemployed able-bodied men who come for assistance.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: May I point out that in making my points I underestimated the figures. Having since checked them I find that the total number of unemployed both on standard and transitional benefit is not 75,000 but 85,740. Those on transitional benefit alone are not 20,000 but 27,250 and there is also to be added the figure of 712 per 10,000 receiving Poor Law relief. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that taking away from transitional benefit any number you like, whether small or large, will have an effect on the density of poverty already existing, and cause people to come to the Poor Law to a greater extent?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not think so at all. I do not think that conditions in the hon. and gallant Member's county will be altered at all. I do not dispute the figures which he has given but I am most anxious to remove from his mind any fear or apprehension that, in his position as one responsible for the administration of the county of Glamorgan, he will find the situation worsened by what we have done.

Mr. O'CONNOR: In the case of a person whose needs have been assessed
by the public assistance committee and who proves to be, comparatively speaking, destitute, it is known of course that the limit of the amount which he can receive by way of transitional benefit will be the regulation limit. Will such a person be prejudiced in any way in getting supplementary assistance, by way of Poor Law relief?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, certainly not! The hon. Member for Gorbals mentioned a point which I am glad to answer. He seemed to think that the effect of these proposals will be to remove from those men who are on transitional benefit such advantages as they have at present with regard to obtaining employment and such other advantages as the Employment Exchange may be able to afford them. Our proposals are designed particularly to secure that that shall not happen and that those who come back for their money to the Exchanges will be, as it were, still within the purview of the Exchanges. It is our desire to do just as much as we can for them in the future, as we have done in the past. We are most anxious in the administration of the scheme not to deprive any man who is on transitional benefit of any of the advantages which he may have now, or to prejudice in any way his chances of getting a job. T was also asked whether the fund or the State is to pay the cost of administration. The answer of course is, that the State pays and not the fund. The extra cost will be paid for by the Exchequer—

Mr. McSHANE: Does that apply to the extra investigators?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It applies to any additional cost. I do not expect hon. Members opposite to accept the conclusions at which T have arrived, but at any rate I have endeavoured to give them reasons which seem to me unanswerable, why these proposals ought to be proceeded with, and in these circumstances, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. WESTWOOD: There is one point which has not been dealt with so far. Under the existing law in Scotland if an applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the public assistance committee he has the right of appeal. Will exactly the same right of appeal apply in regard to any case
decided by a public assistance committee in connection with the new duties which are now to devolve upon those committees?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Far be it from me to venture into the domain of Scottish law. A representative of the Scottish Office is here and will answer any technical point with regard to Scottish law—a subject with which I am not acquainted. But I may say, generally, that it is our proposal to assimilate the law of Scotland to the law of England, and not the law of England to that of Scotland.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the words on page 10 of the White Paper?
Under the procedure referred to the exchange will request the public assistance authority to assess their need and to determine the amount payable (not exceeding the rate for ordinary benefit) and such determination will be final.
Does not that mean that under these proposals the people of Scotland will be a thousand times worse off than they were previously?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): No, Sir, I do not think that that would be the case at all. This transitional payment is not going to be a Poor Law payment. In so far as it is the transitional payment which the man is receiving, it is true that there will be no appeal. But if the transitional payment is considered to be insufficient he will be entitled to claim additional assistance from the public assistance committee, and then he will certainly have his full right of appeal as regards that additional payment.

Mr. WESTWOOD: If there is an opportunity of dealing with the Scottish position, I shall be prepared to reply to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on that point.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will explain these proposals as affecting Scotland?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Certainly. I am prepared at any time to answer any questions which may be addressed to me on
any aspect of these arrangements for which my Department is responsible.

Mr. PALMER: The Committee will appreciate the reasons given by the Minister of Labour for not accepting the Amendment, but everything that has been said is at best patching up the very deplorable conditions under which those people who have been insured for a long time and have made no claim for benefit are suffering, and their condition will in fact be worsened if this paragraph is allowed to stand. I am utterly opposed to the creation of any machinery that will make more difficult and more complicated the administration of unemployment insurance in this country, and I am also opposed to any means for worsening the position of the unemployed.
The Government have brought in this Bill as a part of their economy proposals. Whatever may have been said in justification of the unemployment benefit cut when the present Government came into being, the position has very materially changed since then. The fall from the pound has undoubtedly altered the situation, but we are bound to challenge another aspect of the matter. Despite the national crisis and all the difficulties that we are encountering, not only have we on this side never accepted, and cannot accept, the position that in the scheme of economies inequality of sacrifice should obtain, but we can never understand why the Government made it absolutely imperative, so to speak, made it a sine qua non, made it the first condition of being a Government at all, that the standard of benefit and the conditions of the people insured under unemployment insurance should be worsened.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is rather getting on to an Amendment to the Schedule. The Amendment now before us is whether the words shall stand which impose certain duties on local authorities.

Mr. PALMER: I was keeping that in mind and leading tip to it. This proposal is creating machinery to worsen the conditions of the unemployed, and I am opposed to the creation of such machinery, because it is not general machinery, that will apply to every insured person under the Act; it is only to apply to those who are most in need of insurance. I am not so sure that I could not make out a case for, and
justify support of, some machinery that would take the administration of unemployment insurance from one huge central department down to the localities, where they could watch and administer it more closely and more properly, but this proposal does not do that. It does not deal with the whole range of the operations of unemployment insurance; it deals only with a restricted class.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour just now quoted figures showing that substantially just over a half of the total number of people insured under unemployment insurance had never claimed benefit. It can never be argued that those people are not really the greatest beneficiaries under the insurance scheme. They are really the people who are being protected, and of the two the man who has to go to the Exchange, which is bad enough, and this new class, which has to submit to a need test and an altogether abominable inquisition into their title to payment, are far worse off than those who have never claimed benefit at all.
But what is going to happen to those who have never claimed benefit at all if, in the next decade, they happen to fall on a bad patch, become genuinely unemployed for beyond the time which is supported by their contributions, and come on to this transitional payment? Those people whom the Minister is applauding to-day are, by the action of this Bill, to be subjected to the same abominable means test and inquisition as are those people who to-day are on what we call transitional benefit. It is just a matter of degree. The State is saying that if a man is unemployed for a few weeks, he is a good claim, but that if the works gates are shut against him long enough, then he is a bad claim, and he is to be treated differentially. I oppose this provision in paragraph (b) because it is differentiating between one class of insured persons and another, and is setting up machinery which is an abomination to those who claim that, by payment of contributions, they are entitled at least to dissociation from any suggestion or colour of Poor Law or public assistance administration in this country.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: It seems to me that the opposition to this proposal is based on two objections, one a practical objection and the other a sentimental objection, and, as so often happens, the
sentimental objection is the more formidable of the two. If I may take first the practical objection, it has been put or-ward by several hon. Members that it will not be practicable for this work to be done by the public assistance committees. Several hon. Members have argued that the number of cases that they will have to treat is so great that the machinery will break down. As to that, there appears to be a sharp difference of opinion. Some hon. Members on this side who have great practical experience of the question have taken an exactly contrary view, and it seems to me that where there is this conflict of evidence, the Committee should first of all consider what possible alternative there is. There is clearly the alternative to set up special machinery to deal with the question, and I think no one will dispute that that would mean, in the first place, delay and, in the second place, very considerable expense.
Having regard to those circumstances, I submit that the proper thing to do is to give the Government a chance and to let us see if in fact the public assistance committees are capable of dealing with the work. In saying that, I am assuming, of course, that the unemployed will not be in any way prejudiced in the event of congestion causing delay. If there is a doubt on that, I hope that someone speaking from the Treasury Bench will be in a position to assure the Committee that no one in receipt of transitional benefit will cease to have that benefit on the ground that a public assistance committee has not yet had time to consider his case. Quite clearly, a man should continue to be paid until in fact the question of means has been considered; and if we keep that in mind, we may dearly, on the conflict of evidence before us, entrust this work to the people who, in the opinion of the Government, are able to carry it out. So much for the practical objection.
I come to the sentimental objection. It has been urged again and again in this Debate that the average working man, while he may have no objection to drawing insurance benefit when he is out of work, has the very liveliest objection to asking for poor relief. It seems to me that that is both natural and creditable, and I believe it to be true, but is that a reason why this Committee and this
House should seek to deceive themselves, to deceive the unemployed, and to deceive the rest of the people of this country by describing what is in effect poor relief as though it were insurance benefit? The transitional benefit which is paid today is in fact poor relief, whatever you may call it. It is not a payment that comes from any contribution made; it is a payment that is given to a man because he cannot get means of subsistence somewhere else.

Mr. SANDHAM: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the whole of the revenue of the Unemployment Fund comes from the products of the working classes, and that consequently what is taken out of that fund originally belonged to the working classes and to nobody else.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: In the first place, I entirely deny that statement; and in the second place, may I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is very dangerous to interrupt me, for the last time he did so he had a large part of my speech attributed to him. Let us get back to the question of the nature of poor relief. The Minister endeavoured to make a distinction between transitional benefit as now paid, transitional payments that are going to be made, and poor relief to a man who does not belong to an insurable trade and falls out of employment. There is in essence no distinction, and so far as these proposals before us are concerned, the only point of difference between transitional payments and poor relief is that one is a direct burden on the State, and the other is a burden on the localities.
In essence they are the same, and I submit that those who persist in the endeavour to confuse the relief paid to a man because he is in need, which is poor relief, with the benefit paid to a man because of payments he has previously made, which is insurance benefit, do a great injustice to the insured workers as a whole. It is due to them that the word "dole" should not be used to describe unemployment insurance. I supported the principle of State insurance against unemployment before the first Act was passed by this House, and I have always been a strong sup-
porter of that principle. I have always objected most strongly to the use of the term "dole" being applied to benefit which a man claims in respect of contributions which he has made. We shall not be able to get the application of that word "dole" to insurance benefit done away with until we make a clear distinction between insurance benefit and poor relief. For that reason alone I welcome the proposal put forward by the Government.

Mr. LAWSON: I would appeal to the Committee to come to an early decision on this Amendment for the reason that the Guillotine falls at 7.30, and that after this Amendment there is another Amendment dealing with the proposal which is now being discussed, and a further Amendment dealing with the subject of Orders in Council. Unless we come to an early decision, there will be little or no opportunity of dealing with the central point, which was the subject of the Minister's speech and of the speech of the last speaker.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: On a point of Order. An appeal has been made in regard to the time of the House. What I want to know is—

The CHAIRMAN: I did not call upon the hon. Member; I called upon another hon. Member. Dr. Forgan.

Mr. HARDIE: I know you did not call on me, but. I am raising a point of Order. I want to know whether there is to be a guarantee that the point raised in regard to Scotland, where there is a difference in the application of the Poor Law, is to be fully dealt with.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Dr. FORGAN: I want to remind the Committee that paragraph (b) covers far more than the Committee has yet discussed. Up to now the Committee has discussed only the question whether those in receipt of transitional benefit should appear before the public assistance authorities or the Exchange authorities. The Debate will have very little effect upon the fate of this Measure, which will go through unchanged. I want to suggest, therefore, that as the Bill is to become an Act of Parliament, we ought to try and ascertain whether we cannot
get some good out of a Measure which I heartily dislike. The Minister of Health a few days ago said that this Government or its successor would speedily have to undertake constructive work, and I suggest that if he should be one of the Ministers designated in the Order in Council under paragraph (b), he might impose duties on local authorities in connection with the 'administration of several services, such as Education, National Health Insurance, and Unemployment Insurance. I do not think I am overestimating the effect of the present situation when I say that this winter will be a winter of real hardship for the working classes, not only because their incomes will be seriously reduced, but because, owing to the rise in commodity prices, it will be difficult for the domestic chancellor to balance her budget.
The big item of expenditure is expenditure on food, and I fear, and I think not unreasonably, that, particularly in those homes where the breadwinner is in receipt of health insurance benefit or is unemployed for a long period, there is a danger of malnutrition and ill-health. I suggest that if the Minister of Health used the powers bestowed on him to impose the duty on local authorities of coordinating their various health services, they could see to it that, instead of waiting to relieve malnutrition among the children, there should be periodical examinations. In that way the local authorities could effectively prevent what otherwise will be serious suffering among the children and the workers.

Mr. EGAN: I should be glad if the Minister would clear up two points arising from the lucid explanation which he has given to the House. Is it proposed that those applicants to the public assistance committees who come from the Employment Exchanges will be heard apart from those who are applying for actual Poor Law relief? Can that possibly be done so that the two classes will not be mixed up? The other point is whether any limitation is proposed to the period of the payment of these transitional allowances.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not sure that I appreciate the hon. Member's second point, but if I understand it rightly, I think that I can satisfy him. The transitional payment will be paid
as at present until the need has been assessed.

Mr. EGAN: I am referring to the length of time it will be paid. Is there any limitation to the period during which it will be paid?

Sir H. BETTERTON: So long as the applicant has an insurance qualification, he will go on drawing the transitional payment. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, in the vast, majority of cases there will be no personal applications at all. I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking that they will be segregated in the way he asks.

Mr. EGAN: I gather that the hon. Gentleman said that they would attend the public assistance committees.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I perhaps said that through lack of experience of the work of the public assistance committees. I am told now that in the vast majority of cases there will not be any necessity for attendance at all. There will be attendance only in such cases as the committee may wish to interview. The vast majority of claimants will not be required to attend.

Mr. EGAN: Suppose a public assistance committee require to see an applicant, can he be interviewed apart from the usual relief cases?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not think that that would be administratively possible. I have gone into it, and I am afraid that I cannot give such an undertaking as the hon. Member asks.

Mr. G. HARDIE: I want to raise a point in regard to the difference between English and Scottish law in the application of this new scheme. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) made reference to the compulsory degradation that was taking place. Scotland has always received the highest praise for a certain domination of character and for a great repugnance to taking anything that is not earned, but the system which civilisation is developing in Western parts has brought about a compulsory degradation, and we are anxious in regard to one aspect of this matter. The Minister of Labour tried to make it clear that whatever was to be done under the transitional payments
was to be plus Poor Law relief. He made it clear that if the assessment made by the public assistance committee in regard to a claimant for transitional benefit was not sufficient, the claimant could again appeal to the ordinary Poor Law to get an increase. In view of the statement in the White Paper that no more can be paid by the public assistance committee than is paid to a fully qualified claimant, how can the applicant find his way again to the Poor Law? The statement of the Minister makes the position rather doubtful.
Further, the inquisition will be quite serious. If anyone goes on the Poor Law in Scotland we are nut inefficient when it comes to inquisition. Those who know the investigations that have taken place in regard to poor people know exactly how they are carried out in Scotland, and things are worse than ever now under derating, because local contact has been lost. Now that we are to get decent people, out of work through no fault of their own, transferred after weeks to the public assistance department I want to know whether the inquisition will take account, of the house a man lives in. A man who has been in constant employment all his life may find himself thrown out of work through some scientific development in his trade which has made him unnecessary, quite apart from any question of trade depression, and he has to go to the public assistance authority. That man may have had a taste for a nice home, and by spending wisely he may have got himself a good home. The home is the first thing that attracts the eye of the inquisitive investigator. I know that from experience, because I have been with these investigators when I was a member of the Glasgow school board and serious cases came up.
Is the man to be asked to get rid of something which the investigator may regard as a luxury? Is a comfortable chair a luxury? Is the man to get rid of his table and substitute an orange box? Many poor people have been moved into new houses under our housing schemes and they have to pay higher rents. Is it intended that a man must go back to the old conditions under which he lived, go back to the slum, in order to qualify to receive public assistance? What is to be the standard on which
these individuals are to be judged—because it is a judgment which is to be passed on them? Why should poor people who have no responsibility for the present decay of industry, which is under the control of others, be compelled to undergo a cross-examination as to why they are poor? They have been rendered poor by those who were supposed to be able to keep our industries going. Why should even one employer be allowed to sit in judgment on decent, honest, hard-working men thrown out of employment in the present circumstances?
I want to know if the cost of living will be a basis of assessment? If it is, I would point out that the Government have already wiped out the fall in the cost of living. The increase in the cost of living has taken away even the 1½ per cent, to the good which was supposed to be left after the 10 per cent. cut in the unemployment benefit. The increase in the cost of living is now 12 per cent. Further, is there to be a cost of living datum line in each city? Is there to be co-ordination between different localities, or is each locality to be left to develop its own system and its own standards? It is no use asking these questions after the machinery has been built up; it is best to put them when the machinery is being designed.
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) to the indiscriminate use of the word "dole." It is a pity the word "dole" is used so freely—as if we were giving a person something to which he had no right. I would sum up my points in this way. We want to know whether there is to be co-ordination between the systems in different localities, we want to know whether a man's house and furniture are to be taken into consideration as a basis of assessment, and, also, whether the price of food is to be a basis. Is the fact that a man has been paying a higher rent in order to give his children a better home to go against him in comparison with a man who has been paying a lower rent?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I hope the Committee will forgive me if even at this late stage I now say a few words on the question of the means test. One thing must be absolutely obvious to all of us on this side of the House, and that is that the opposition to the present pro-
posals on the part of hon. Members opposite is no "put-up job" on their part, but rests on sincere and deep conviction. Only last week we had an eloquent speech on this subject from the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). He said, in effect, "Let us not do collectively what we should not do individually." I should also like to point out to him that he should not condemn our doing collectively what we should do individually. What the Government are proposing at the present time is what every single Member in this House would do himself. Supposing the hon. Member for Camlachie or anyone else were sitting at home and there came a knock at the door, and on answering it he found there a man who was out of employment and asking for work or for assistance. What would he do? He would ask him a number of questions, not to insult the man but to find out the real facts, and to make certain that he was not a rogue who was trying to impose upon one's benevolence and take advantage of the miseries of his fellow workers. He would ask the man where he had been at work, how he got out of work, and what resources were now left to him. If it turned out from those inquiries that he was a perfectly genuine man the hon. Member, or anyone else, would do the very best to the extent of his means to assist the man—give him work, or money, or food. The hon. Member would not think that by making those inquiries he had been insulting that man or his class. That is exactly the attitude of the State towards the individuals in the present circumstances.
I have often wondered why the feeling expressed by hon. Members opposite has grown up, and I think it has a historical origin, it dates back to the old stigma which has always attached to Poor Law relief. I think everybody on this side of the House dislikes that stigma as much as any one else. It is obviously a completely wrong and artificial thing. It is a tragic, a melancholy thing that a man who wishes to work and to bring home a good wage to his wife and family should be unable to do so, but it is not humiliating; it is his misfortune, and if he has to go to his fellow citizens for temporary assistance, which he would be quite ready to give back to them in turn, there is nothing humiliating about it.

Mr. SANDHAM: Demoralising!

Viscount CRANBORNE: I do not think it is in the least demoralising. If it is demoralising all Christian morality, and every other morality, is wrong. We know the story of the Good Samaritan. I and all other hon. Members were brought up to admire the Good Samaritan. If he was wrong in relieving his fellow citizen, then the whole of Christian morality is wrong.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: He gave the twopence without any questions in that case.

Viscount CRANBORNE: The point is that the Good Samaritain gave relief and the other man received relief, and it did neither of them any moral harm. In any case, whether hon. Members like it or do not like it, transitional benefit is relief in this particular sense, that it is a reward given for compassionate reasons and not as a result of services rendered. What is the whole basis of wages? It is a result of the exchange of commodities. Putting it very crudely, Mr. A and his workmen make some article and sell it to Mr. B and his workmen, and out of the proceeds of the sale Mr. A pays the wages of his workmen. Vice versa, Mr. B makes some article in his factory and sells it to Mr. A. and his workmen, and out of the proceeds Mr. B pays the wages of his workmen. Suppose that for some reason, any reason you like, bad trade, the Gold Standard, or anything that appeals to hon. Members—

Miss LAWRENCE: On a point of Order. This discussion appears to be ranging over topics which are the subject of later Amendments and go far beyond the. Amendment before us.

The CHAIRMAN: The discussion has been rather wide, but it is rather difficult to avoid that on the extensive powers of local authorities on unemployment. The Noble Lord will, no doubt, try to keep as near to the Amendment as he can.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I will try to keep as near as possible. The hon. Lady will see that I am coming back to it very soon, and really, I have never been very far away from it. Suppose that Mr. B's factory is closed for some reason and his men have to accept transitional benefit—that is the subject under discussion on this Amendment—that benefit is paid by
the State, and the State obtains it by taxation, land that taxation is raised and can only be raised from the other productive industries. It is really paid for by Mr. A and his workmen. It must be paid by them just as much as if Mr. B's workmen were to go to his door and he were to give them money or goods in kind. It is pure relief. It is quite right that the community should pay relief, but when they are giving that relief they are entitled to see that it is properly administered.
It is not as though hon. Members opposite had any real objection to inquiries. Only a few weeks ago we had a discussion in this House on land taxes, and there was one Clause in the Finance Bill then before us which provided for a very considerable inquisition into the income of those who hold land. Hon. Members bad so little objection to it that they allowed it to be passed under the Guillotine with no discussion whatever. They believed it was quite a fair thing. I put it to hon. Members that one principle for which they say they stand is that there should not be one law for the rich and another for the poor, and I think this is a very good opportunity for them to put that principle into operation.

Mr. GOULD: I know that the Guillotine will fall at 7.30 and there is another subject which we desire to discuss. I would like to bring the Committee back to the points which were made clear by the Minister of Labour in the very courteous speech which he made, and for which we are all very much indebted to him. I think the country ought to know the various implications of these economy proposals, and they ought to know clearly how they are going to affect the mass of the unemployed. There is another proposal issuing from the Government that has given much concern to the public and which is sure to arouse much social and public feeling. We have heard to-day that every unemployed person, after having drawn 26 unemployment payments, will, willy-nilly, be sent to the public assistance committee, who will undertake a personal investigation into the whole circumstances, including the wages of boys, old age pensions, bank pass book, if any; post office savings, and every detail of domestic life must be placed upon the table.
An hon. Member opposite told the Committee that there was no reason why there should be any public feeling, or any personal feeling, in regard to these investigations, but it is evident that the hon. Member who made that statement has never been subject to such a humiliation. I would like the Committee and especially the Liberal Members, to have a free vote on this question. We are now dealing with a question which affects that independence which is the bulwark of our national life, a kind of psychological thing which it is a very difficult to define, but quite understood by ell of us. The spirit of reservation and independence in the life of these men and women is the very salt of society in the churches and other social organisations. These people are in the position of doing their best in social life. They are blood of our blood and bone of our bone and within six weeks the greatest humiliation of their life will be perpetrated by the passing of this Bill. There is not a Liberal in this House worthy of the name who would not agree with me when I say that the best men are those with a cottage of their own who have saved a few pounds, and where the boys are bringing in a few shillings weekly, and yet this Bill proposes to force the men and women in those homes into a Poor Law organisation where they will he humiliated by the inquiries of public assistance committees.
If I know anything about Radicalism, it means the right to develop individual liberty and personality, but the hideousness and bitterness that will ensue from the passing of this Bill means the negation of all those principles. Whenever a home is humiliated in this way by being placed under the ban of destitution, the spirit of the home is broken. The man who is treated in that way comes out broken in mind, and separated from his class and his comrades. I can visualise hundreds of these men waiting to be interrogated and humiliated in that way. Such a matter as this cannot be decided even after this Bill becomes law, and there will be no issue so virile and bitter at the next election as the issue which we are discussing this afternoon. Had the Prime Minister been present I would have asked him to allow us to have a free vote of the Committee on this issue.
[Interruption.] I do not believe that a Member of our party made this proposal, and, even if he did, I am sure that we should repudiate it at the first opportunity. The issue is too serious for us to be in any doubt as to where we stand, and we shall transfer this fight from this Committee to the constituencies, and we shall be returned to this House in order to reverse a verdict that is a degradation to humanity and an outrage upon the decencies of public life.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I rise to deal with one or two Scottish points which have been raised in this Debate, but I am afraid that I must not be tempted to reply to the attractive arguments which have been put forward in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Gould). The main Scottish point which has been put forward is that persons in receipt of public assistance in Scotland, even if they are able-bodied poor, have a right of appeal to the Department of Health on the score of the inadequacy of their allowance. The hon. Lady the Member for North East Ham (Miss Lawrence), in her speech on Tuesday last, asked if it was intended to introduce into this country the Scottish method, which allowed an appeal in the case of the able-bodied poor. The hon. Lady asked if there was going to be any appeal provided against the assessments made by the public assistance committees with regard to transitional payment. The suggestion was that it would be desirable to incorporate that particular provision of the Scottish Poor Law into the system of assessments for transitional payment. For reasons which have been fully stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour it is obvious that, if you are going to have a means test, the body most fitted to inquire into the means of these poor people is the local public assistance committee. It is obvious that the desire is, as far as possible, to segregate and separate the recipients of transitional payment from the recipients of public assistance.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not a fact that in the local administration in Scotland, whether it is in regard to Poor Law or old age pension, any dissatisfied applicant has a right to appeal to the Minister
of Health; and is it not also a fact that the White Paper definitely lays down that there is no appeal from the decisions of the public assistance committees?

Mr. SKELTON: It would be quite improper for me to go into the general question, and I am simply dealing with the point which was put by the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. The question put to me is whether the Government intend to incorporate, in the system of assessing the means of those receiving transitional benefit, the procedure which exists in Scotland in the case of those receiving public assistance through the public assistance committees? My answer is that we are not going to do any such thing. My final reason is that we are attempting to deal quite separately, as far as possible, with the position of those receiving transitional payments from those who are receiving public assistance. It is clear that those who are going to receive these transitional payments only approach the region of public assistance because their need is going to be assessed by the public assistance committee. Otherwise, the payments to those persons and everything else is done, not through the public assistance committee, but through the Employment Exchanges.
If you are going to incorporate one feature of the Scottish public assistance system, namely, the right of appeal to the Department of Health, then you would surely have to incorporate the other features of the procedure with regard to public assistance. What are those features? There is a character test; there is the fact that the recipient may he forced to receive his payment in kind and there is the fact that, if necessary in distressing circumstances, connected, no doubt, with the character of the recipient, he may have to receive his relief in the poor-house of the district. These are the other sides of the procedure proper to public assistance in Scotland, and the proposal that one part of the procedure of public assistance should be adopted and the other discarded is a, proposal for which there can be no logical foundation. I think it may be said with confidence that there is nothing that would be more undesirable, or that the Government would more dislike, than that there should be any suggestion that men
and women, presently on transitional benefit, who, after these provisions have come into effect, will receive transitional payment, should be paid, for instance, partly in kind, or that the means test should develop into a character test.
Therefore, in my judgment, if I may say so frankly and without discourtesy, there is a certain element of confusion of mind in asking us to incorporate or introduce into the procedure with regard to transitional payment this particular part of the procedure which is only proper to public assistance. That was the only really Scottish question that was raised. The hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. G. Hardie) has, under the guise of putting it as a purely Scottish question, raised the question of what the means test is going to be, and whether it is going to be applied on the same principle as in the case of a means test for public assistance. The answer is, Yes, it is. In Scotland and England alike—

Mr. L0GAN: It is going to become destitution.

Mr. SKELTON: That is not a word that I have ever heard before in this connection. It is going to be exactly the same means test as is applied to every person who requires assistance and is not under insurance at present. It is going to be the same kind of means test that is applied to the agricultural worker who is not insured, when he requires the assistance of the community. A further answer to this question seems to me to be that it would be absurd to suppose that you could have two different means tests. Either an individual requires the assistance of the State—whether that assistance is going to he paid for by the Treasury or out of the rates—or he does not, and it is obvious that there cannot be two separate means tests, the one, say, proper to the agricultural labourer who is out of work, and the other proper to the steelworker. The principle upon which we have gone is this: You have your local body, knowing fully and better than any one else the needs of individuals and the standard of the locality, and the whole question of assessment has been entrusted to them; but the men who are going to receive unemployment payment are not to be treated as though they are receiving public assistance, but as having a right to receive the
appropriate money payment so soon as the public assistance committee has decided what that appropriate money payment is.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: The Committee are anxious to come to a decision, and, therefore, I will confine myself to asking three specific questions. First, what do the Government intend to do in case public assistance committees refuse to do this dirty work for them? From what I hear, it may happen that public assistance committees would take this view. Secondly, will the regulations provide for uniformity of administration or between Poor Law authority and Poor Law authority? You are dealing with national money, and, presumably, there should be uniformity, particularly in contiguous areas. May I ask, further, whether the regulations will require all, Poor Law authorities to adopt the same practice in calculating the needs of a, family? In other words, can we have an assurance that one local authority will not insist upon a man realising the amount of money that he may have paid on mortgage for his house or to a building society before he can get any benefit, while another authority may allow him to retain his property? May we have an assurance that in this respect there will be uniformity?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I should like to ask two questions. Suppose that a man goes to the public assistance committee and his case is turned down by them, and that he then applies for poor relief proper? Under the Poor Law, he has a right of appeal. Suppose that he appeals, and his appeal is allowed. What then is his position? What is the position as regards the Exchange? Is the first body the determining factor, or the second? Again, assume that a mistake has been made by the committee; or, indeed, it is not impossible for the man himself to make a mistake. If a decision is based on mistaken facts, is there to be any review where it can be proved that the decision was based on mistaken facts? Even with the court of referees now, if a person can bring forward new facts, a new court is given. Will that be the practice here?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I should like to ask a question on the same point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). An agricul-
tural labourer has the right of appeal at present, if he has applied to the public assistance committee and has either been refused or provided with inadequate assistance. It has already been stated that the Government do not want any difference of treatment as between the unemployed man and the agricultural labourer who has, unfortunately, had to make application. Does that position still hold good, so that each will have some court of appeal, though not necessarily the same one? A court of referees might be set up to give justice to the unemployed man who is applying for transitional benefit through the public assistance committee.

Mr. SKELTON: With regard to the second question of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), in the event of an error being made by the public assistance committee, and new facts being brought forward, I see no difficulty in the applicant going back to the public assistance committee with the new facts. Both hon. Members have raised the question of appeals once again, and it is a little technical. In the case of the able-bodied poor, there is no appeal to anyone against a decision by the public assistance committee to give no relief at all; but, once relief is decided on by the public assistance committee, there is an appeal to the Department of Health as to amount and adequacy. In the case of the ordinary poor, I think I am correct in saying that there is quite a different sort of appeal, namely, an appeal to the sheriff as to whether the applicant is not entitled to relief in a case where the parish council deny it. That only exists in the case of the non-able-bodied poor, and it is really not in the picture at all as I see it. I do not think I need add anything to the reasons which I have already given for our decision not to incorporate the provision as to appeals to the Department in the case of the able-bodied poor.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I want to bring the discussion back to the question of a Government which desires to bring into operation certain regulations. I have had experience on the largest Poor Law authority in the world, and am thoroughly au fait with the whole question of means tests. I trust that this Committee will pay attention to what they are about to make an Act of Parliament do in respect of transitional benefit. Let us have no
ambiguity or mincing of words. The word "destitution" is one of which everyone connected with Poor Law administration knows the meaning, as applied to those in the transitional period who are now being sent from the legitimate channel to the illegitimate channel to be dealt with in regard to unemployment benefit. Do the Government propose to apply this procedure to the man who was working on an employment scheme set up by the Government, and who now, because the scheme is insolvent, is unemployed? Those who will be sent to the public assistance committee will not only be members of the Labour party, but members of the Liberal and Tory parties, men who are unemployed through no fault of their own, who have been honestly seeking work day by day, who have always been afraid of the stigma of pauperism, and have never wished to taint their families with the fact that they have had to seek pauper relief—for that is what this Bill means. Is that your sense of your responsibility on the question of administration? You cannot shirk the responsibility in regard to the 900,000 people who must now apply to the Poor Law authorities. I have an intimate knowledge of the Poor Law in Liverpool. It is a rather dangerous precedent that you are setting up. You must accept the responsibility of this iniquity that you are about to place on the deserving poor. You talk of the family life of the nation and you say there is only one category. Only a moment ago the Minister said there is no classification and no distinction. Have we now reached the stage with the genuine unemployed that there is no distinction? I think you must be going mad in respect to your legislation, with a vast army of 2,800,000 unemployed, to come to the House of Commons and insult the workers and say the only proposition you can put up is that they are to go to the guardians to have their case decided. There is to be a means test, and Bumbledom is to inquire into the character and into the income and, what is more, to communicate with every firm in which any member of the family is employed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Go and ask the people you represent "Why not." I was sitting on a relief committee at Liverpool when a great ship-owner decided that a ship
would have to lie up. The chief officer, holding an extra chief's ticket, after three years' unemployment, came along to be assessed. He said his home had gone and now he had to come before us to see if we could give him something to keep him alive. For 30 odd years he had sailed the Seven Seas. The latest saving is that even captains of ships whose boats are being laid up no longer get money from their firms and are unemployed until the ship can sail again.
Is it to be said that at the end of 26 weeks these men are to go to the guardians to have their cases inquired into? Is there no classification? Are we to reduce the great mass of deserving cases among the unemployed down to a system of Bumbledom which was only intended to deal with vagrants in its early stages, or have we forgotten that we are in England, that the unemployed, through no fault of their own, anxious for work and not able to get it, are now to be degraded by the system that the Government are bringing in? Who will deal with the cases? Will it be those who have faced the electors or the co-opted members, who have no responsibility, who will do the dirty work of the Government? In my opinion, it is bad for the nation, and for everything that makes for the safety of the nation, to have the vast army of unemployed dealt with in the inhumane manner of this legislation. If you know anything at all of the psychology of great crowds of people, if you know anything of the mass of 6,000 unemployed who went through the streets of Liverpool yesterday, you will consider, before you do anything so damnable as this, whether your policy is a right or proper one. I believe we have to face a great crisis, but your system is radically wrong. As human nature is concerned, it is a wrong classification entirely. You will never get rid of the problem this way at all. You want to consider the human side of life and put it back into its proper channel and let the proper body deal with it as they ought, so that you can get on with your business. I hope you will withdraw this from the Bill.

Major NATHAN: Throughout the whole of this discussion attention has been concentrated on those of the unemployed who have passed off transitional
benefit. The Committee might be under the impression, from the speeches that have been made, that the whole of the unemployed, being insured persons, have received transitional benefit. That is far from being the case. The hon. Member who has just spoken asked whether it was right and proper that the captain of a vessel falling into unemployment should be subjected to what he described as the ignominy of a means test. That is precisely the position to-day of the captain of a vessel who falls into unemployment and has to have recourse to benefits that will be given to him not under the Unemployment Insurance Act but under public assistance. The able seaman, the fisherman or the agricultural labourer who falls into unemployment has to appeal to the public assistance authority and to undergo the ignominy as the hon. Member says—I do not accept the description myself—of a means test. There has been too great an attempt made in the course of these Debates on the part of those speaking from the benches opposite to try to establish a sort of aristocracy of labour consisting of those who have passed through insurance benefit, covenanted benefit to transitional benefit. I represent a working class constituency in which the unemployed have increased threefold during the past two years. Great numbers of them who are receiving assistance have never been insured because they have never had the qualifications for insurance. I cannot understand myself why a procedure which has been thought fit, without question or complaint from the benches opposite, for the street trader, for the business man who has fallen upon evil days, for the widow who for some reason has not received the widow's pension, for the aged spinster who is not yet entitled to an old age pension and has never qualified for the widow's pension, a procedure which hon. Members do not contest—[Interruption.] They are very vocal now, but throughout the whole course of these Debates throughout the whole of the last three years, not a protest has been raised as regards the procedure applicable to these classes of unemployed. To my mind, there is no reason to differentiate those who have exhausted their covenanted benefit from those who have never been entitled to it at all. I join in the hope that has been expressed that the procedure now
contemplated for those who have passed off transitional benefit will be administered in the spirit in which I believe it has been administered, at all events in the neighbourhood with which I am familiar, in a spirit of good feeling, sympathy, consideration and justice.

Mr. SANDHAM: I think we are approaching this question from an entirely wrong angle. We ought to be searching for the culprits who are responsible for this alleged crisis.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I must point out to the hon. Member that that particular point does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. SANDHAM: The fund which has, in the first place, been drawn upon by the unemployed and the funds which have to be drawn upon in regard to what is granted by the public assistance committees have one source, and one source only. I hope that I. may be able to deal with that matter. The source of it is the productive capacity of the working classes of this country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question from what source it is derived does not arise on this Amendment, and the only question that can arise is as to what; duties of local authorities are affected.

Mr. SANDHAM: May I point out to you, Captain Bourne, with very great respect, that we are entitled to deal with the basic matter responsible for the issue before the Committee, and that is the question of funds? I respectfully put that point to you. As a matter of fact, the unemployed section who will have to come before the public assistance committees have had nothing but injustice meted out from beginning to end. The unemployed contributor to the insurance scheme, when he was in employment, not only contributed his own share by the product of his labour, not only contributed the whole of the master's share by the product of his labour, but he also contributed the whole of the State's share by the product of his labour. That is absolutely indisputable. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but I ask them very seriously to analyse what I have been saying in connection with that matter. I
am, therefore, opposed to a method of this description which allows the moneys of those people to be handled by and through public assistance committees. I think that it is totally wrong.
As a matter of justice, instead of the unemployed being called before the public assistance committees, those people who have been responsible for the financial ramp in this country and in other countries, but, as affecting this issue, those in this country, ought to be brought before the public assistance committees. What have the employed and the unemployed done to deserve this? Is it that they have been unable to produce sufficient? Is it that there is a shortage of the means of life in this country, or is it that they have not been allowed to produce as much as they might have done, in spite of the fact that there is a superabundance of everything affecting the means of life in this country and in other countries? I suggest that if the Government of the day think that the country is going to take a matter of this description quiescently, they are making a very grave mistake. I know what will happen in Liverpool if the Government persist in that line of policy, because understand pretty well the temperament of Liverpool and what it is capable of doing in certain directions. I want us to avoid that, hence my observations at this juncture, and I hope and trust that the Government will withdraw this particular portion of economy which they think is likely to save the nation in the immediate future.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I rise for the purpose of putting some questions to the Minister to which I should like answers. When unemployed are referred to the public assistance committees, what scale is to be applied? Is it to be the scale of unemployment benefit or the scale of the public assistance committees? It is important that we should know. I represent a depressed area where probably 90 per cent. of the unemployed will come immediately before these committees, and it is essential that we should know exactly the treatment that will be meted out to them. If the Minister will tell us what scales are to be applied, it will probably make things much easier for us.

Mr. DIXEY: I wish to ask for information to which, I think, the Committee are entitled, from right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the benches opposite. We are called upon to discuss the very nasty and disagreeable subject as to whether a means test should be applied. Everybody dislikes interrogations with regard to means. It is common knowledge among Income Tax payers in the country. A large number of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee have had some experience of paying Income Tax, and they know that it is inconvenient and very disagreeable to be called upon to furnish details of one's income. I have not heard any protests from hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite except the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that they object to the ordinary course of interrogation which is put to respectable applicants who come for Poor Law relief. Such a person is asked to furnish particulars of his financial position. To my mind there is a connection between the representations of hon. Members opposite and the votes which may be affected. The poor widow who has to go through the ordinary Poor Law is not represented in the multitude of votes which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are so keen on retaining at the present time. I think that the Deputy-Leader of the party opposite and a prominent ornament of the Opposition, the late Home Secretary, will probably tell the Committee that the late Cabinet before their tragic fall were in agreement, at all events, that there was a necessity for a means or a needs test.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why tragic?

Mr. DIXEY: Not tragic for the country, but tragic for themselves. Perhaps it was a very unfortunate term to use. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary if he will tell the Committee—he has not yet intervened in the Debate—to what test he, as one of the Members of the Cabinet, was prepared to agree and to introduce? It is obvious that relief should not be given indiscriminately. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) have, I understand, admitted in this House that they had a type of means test which
they would propose to apply. It would be very useful in this Debate for the Committee to have a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman, and I therefore propose to give way to him straight away.

Mr. HAYCOCK: In practically every Debate now an accusation is made that our own Front Bench in these matters is not without sin. The only argument against that is that you are as bad as we are. There can be no real defence in respect of these mean and unnecessary conditions. The hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey) said that we are merely thinking in terms of vote-catching and not of the widows and other unfortunate people. In season and out of season, long before we were threatened with a General Election, we have fought for better conditions for the unemployed, and we shall keep on fighting for better conditions. If hon. Members on the other side or on this side knew that their wives and families had to face poverty after 26 weeks, there would be a different attitude towards this fund. I refer to those hon. Members who live sheltered lives, and those hon. Members who were lucky enough to choose their parents.

Viscountess ASTOR: To choose their parents?

Mr. HAYCOCK: Yes. You were lucky enough to choose a husband. People who have never known what it is to walk the hard road of capitalism and of poverty, and what it is to have to go before public assistance committees are in a fortunate position. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth said that Income Tax payers had to answer certain questions. Have Income Tax payers to go before a public assistance committee? Do they have to disclose the contents of the family cupboard? [Interruption.] I know that there are certain people who have to give intimate details of their private lives, but that is when they are explaining matters to their creditors and are driven to bankruptcy. That is when they have to tell how they backed the wrong horse both ways. There happen to be two classes of society. You would not accept this proposal to be tortured and catechised yourselves, and if you would not accept it for yourselves it is not good enough for the workless who are unem-
ployed because of the rotten and unnecessary system which now prevails. If you would not put up with this sort of thing yourselves, it is pretty mean and shabby to ask the other fellow to put up with it.
What is the purpose behind it all? The purpose is plainer than a pikestaff. I hold in my hand a report on the industrial situation issued by the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations. They contain the orders that were issued some months ago to the late Government. They tell us in this report that they are the employers of fully 7,000,000 workpeople normally. They tell us quite blatantly and without any shame, without even disguising it. They let pussy right out of the bag, and pussy is miaowing. These are the words ipsissima verba. [Interruption.] I was only indulging in a Latin quotation, and the hon. Gentleman opposite is jealous. He inflicted the same kind of agony upon the House the other day when he tried to let us know that his classical education had not been neglected. Here are the words contained in the report:
Wages must come down if we are to hold our own in the markets of the world, and the one factor which is keeping wages is the unemployment benefit which is being indiscriminately given. It might at first sight bo imagined that wages are controlled solely by the workers and employers in the various industries themselves and that the State has no responsibility for the post-War mal-adjustment of wage levels in this country. We should, however, point out that since the War the State paid by fixing high rates of unemployment benefit and constantly relaxing the conditions for the payment of it by fixing high rates of unemployment benefit and constantly relaxing the conditions for the payment of it, and by paying grants to local authorities for distribution in wage rates higher than our export industry can afford, and so on, are the factors in the rigidity of wages that are keeping wages up.
They take the view that if we can only harry and torture the unemployed, the trade union leaders will be unable to bargain with the employers, down will come wages and then, I suppose, we shall be the workshop of the world again, our export trade will go up, and the numbers of the unemployed will go down. [Interruption.] It always surprises me on very important matters, such as the way the trade unions treat their members, to note the lack of elementary knowledge, A.B.C. knowledge, on the
part of hon. Members opposite. That sort of nonsense is uttered on platforms all over the country. In order to let the hon. Member know, so that he will never do it again, may I tell him that he is completely mistaken? If I can take away a little of his ignorance and give him some facts, it may help the Committee. The statement that he has made is not true. The document from which I have been quoting, goes on to say:
Having regard to the high rates of benefit and the laxity of qualifying conditions"—
that is, 26 weeks—
it is only natural that the trade unions, anxious to maintain their wage levels and knowing that their unemployed members can count upon unemployment benefit more or less permanently at those high rates—[Interruption.]
there are many hon. Members opposite who will spend more on a single dinner than the unemployed will get even at those so-called high rates in one week.

Mr. DIXEY: And Members on your side!

Mr. HAYCOCK: The hon. Member is anticipating. Even if that statement were true, it would not affect my argument. If I could afford that amount of money for my dinner, what a despicable person should be if I insisted upon a surgical operation upon the inadequate income of the unemployed. If I were married and I saw my wife and children well fed and living in luxury, and I was so mean as to ask the unemployed to take less in benefit, and after 26 weeks I sent them before the public assistance committee, I should be ashamed of myself. If I could afford such a dinner, I hope that I should understand what the ingredients of generosity ought to be. The proposal of the Government which we are discussing is a direct drive upon the purchasing power of the people. It will help to destroy the home market, and the "omega" will be much worse than the "alpha" when the story is written. I will proceed with the quotation.
—are disinclined in wage negotiations to take the same account of the necessity of adjusting wages to levels at which industry can absorb their unemployed.
The very fact that they can draw this benefit gives a bargaining power to the trades union leaders. The Noble Lord
the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) in that wonderfully-phrased speech yesterday, told us that the only hope was to get the wage level down, so that we could compete in the markets of the world. I am afraid that there is no way out in the way he suggested. I repeat that the Government's proposal is a drive upon wage standards. If you take away the defence that the workers now have, because of unemployment insurance, you weaken their defence generally. [Interruption.] The last person who is entitled to suggest that I am wasting time, wasted more time than anybody on the back benches on the Tory side during the term of the last Government. We are entitled to know precisely what are to be the conditions confronting the unfortunate people in connection with the public assistance committees. What will happen to them when they go before those committees. Many thousands of people will be dependent upon the decisions made by those committees, and we are entitled to know what their fate is to be. I do not think the plan will be very generous.
We are justified in being suspicious of the character of the proposals, and I want to know, while there is yet time to criticise the proposals, what is to happen to the unemployed after the 26 weeks are up? Perhaps it might be better to take a lesson from the thrifty housewife, who drowns the kittens. Perhaps we ought to drown the unemployed after the 26 weeks, and not allow them to go before the public assistance committees. We know what the public assistance committees mean. We know what Bumbledom means. We are told that all these things are necessary because we have to make Budgets balance. The Prime Minister told us that we must tighten our belts, that we must think in terms of rigid economy, and that if we were not in an emergency we might afford to be generous. We were told at first that these things were being done because it was necessary to save the Gold Standard, which was in danger. The Gold Standard has gone west. So far as the unemployed are concerned, they have never been on the Gold Standard. They have bought their food in half-pennyworths and pennyworths. The Gold Standard has gone, milk is still being delivered, the
bottom has not dropped out of industry. What argument is there left for proceeding with this Bill?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now delivering a general speech on economy. He must confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I must talk about the public assistance committee. The purpose of the Government's proposals was that we had to balance the Budget and that we had to economise, and I was suggesting that now that the Gold Standard has gone, and everybody is glad that it has gone, and politicians and newspapers are telling us that we are in for boom times, when everything in the commercial garden will be lovely, when stocks and shares are sky rocketing, when Dives will have more meat and the poor man will have more crumbs, now that we have got away from this yellow metal, there is no need for this economy.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What the newspapers have to say cannot possibly concern this Amendment. I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. HAYCOCK: It is difficult for me to determine when I am exactly in order. I do not like to transgress the Rules of the House. I think that there might have been a change of policy, seeing that we are told in every quarter that the times ahead are going to be good and that the days of prosperity are coming. If those statements are true, there is no need for this Economy Bill, and there is no need to send the unemployed before committees which never take the trouble to understand the trials, troubles and tribulations of the unemployed. We ought to know exactly what the unemployed will have to bear after the 26 weeks, and what the programme of the public assistance committees will be.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is very difficult to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is not the policy of the Government to harry and torture the unemployed. We are all deeply interested in the question of unemployment and we are assisting the Government to put the country on a sound financial basis. No one can be unmindful of the pitiful state of the unemployed.
During the term of office of the late Government, the number of the unemployed doubled.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The number of the unemployed does not arise. The Noble Lady must confine herself to the Amendment.

Viscountess ASTOR: I want to put this point to the Committee, and it is a matter upon which we are entitled to have sonic explanation. The late Minister of Health agreed to a means test. I want to know, what was the means test to which he agreed? That is very important. It is only fair that the unemployed should know. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite are saying that they would not do this and that, but Members on the Front Bench opposite agreed to a means test; and I ask what kind of a means test?

Mr. SANDHAM: May I ask, Captain Bourne, for your Ruling as to whether we are discussing the validity of a means test or not?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are discussing what duties may be imposed upon local authorities under Clause 1 of the Bill.

Viscountess ASTOR: That is exactly my point. I appeal to hon. and right hon. Members opposite to let us know, to let the country know, to what kind of a means test they agreed. The country is really a little muddled about it, and the unemployed are muddled too. [Interruption.] We know what the late First Commissioner of Works did when he was in office. All he did was to make it more pleasant for the children in the parks.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see how that has anything to do with the Amendment before the Committee.

Viscountess ASTOR: The Amendment deals with the unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman the late First Commissioner of Works was one of the men who led the unemployed when we were in office, but when he got into office the only thing he thought about was to make it pleasanter for the people in the parks. When he is out of office he leads them, but when he is in office he goes hack on
every promise he ever made. We have a right to know what was the means test to which hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite agreed: and upon whom it was to be imposed. It is no good waiting for the election. When they get on the platforms in the country they will say things quite different from what they say in the House of Commons. We demand an answer from right hon. Members opposite. The late Minister of Health said on one occasion:
To have recourse to the Poor Law is something which is bitterly repugnant to most members of the working class.
It is repugnant to everybody.

Mr. SANDHAM: Even to the rich?

Viscountess ASTOR: Yes, even to the rich. People who were once rich are getting poorer and poorer, and they may have to go to the Poor Law. Some hon. and right hon. Members opposite preach in the pulpit, and make the most of their religion out of the House of Commons. I ask them to be honest, not to shirk the point, and to say what was the means test and how it was going to be applied.

Mr. LANSBURY: rose—

Viscountess ASTOR: You are not responsible.

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Lady probably was not in the House two nights ago when I stated exactly what I meant by a means test.

Viscountess ASTOR: I agree, but what the right hon. Gentleman means by the means test is not what the Government of which he was a representative meant. What we want to know is whether the late Minister of Health agreed to a means test and what that test was.

Mr. LANSBURY: If the hon. Lady was regular in attendance she would know that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Greenwood) said at this Box a few days ago what he meant by a means test. The hon. Lady does not know what happens in the House.

Viscountess ASTOR: I know perfectly well what the right hon. Member for Colne Valley said, but was that the test to which he agreed when he was in office?

Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly.

Viscountess ASTOR: Then it is a very strict means test.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Lady read it?

Viscountess ASTOR: I will not. [Interruption.]

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether an hon. Member of this House is in order in charging against another hon. Member statements which are absolutely and entirely untrue?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that is not an infrequent practice in our Debates.

Viscountess ASTOR: Really, the sensitiveness of the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is pitiable. Sensitiveness is a form of selfishness; you are never sensitive unless you are thinking about yourself, and the right hon. Gentleman ever since the late Government went out of office has only been thinking as to how he was going to appear in the picture. We all know that he was the joke of the late Government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment.

Mr. W. THORNE: On a point of Order. As you have already called the hon. Lady to order on three occasions, are you not entitled to ask her to resume her seat?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Viscountess ASTOR: I ask the late Home Secretary to tell us what the Opposition Front Bench means by a means test. We want to know. So far we have had nothing from them as to what their means test was. They have quibbled and quibbled, one after the other. We want to know, and we demand an answer, as to what means test the late Government proposed to impose. I am certain that hon. Members on the back benches opposite want to know. [Interruption.] I remember that the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health when the late Government came into office said that there would be no unemployed, and even if there were they could pass a Bill within three weeks which would guarantee to give them milk—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady must confine her observations to the Question before the Committee.

Viscountess ASTOR: I will, but you must remember, Captain Bourne, that we have to sit here and listen to hon. Members opposite making tub-thumping speeches which have very little to do with the question, and which are only made with the idea of catching the eye of the gallery. One last word. [Interruption.] I should like to have from the late Home Secretary the means test which the late Government agreed should he imposed on the unemployed.

Mr. BOWEN: The honourable Lady—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I do not mind hon. Members who have spoken several times in the last week being a little impatient, but when I have an opportunity of saying a few words on one occasion I do object to that impatience. The hon. Lady for Sutton [Viscountess Astor] has interested the Committee, as she always does. There are certain qualities about the hon. Lady which I very much admire. First of all, she has declared, by inference, that she is not a sensitive person, and, secondly, that she never plays to the gallery.

Viscountess ASTOR: Has this anything to do with the unemployed?

Mr. BOWEN: I hope I am not the only person who may not be permitted a few irrelevancies. I have sat here and listened to a good many during the Debate, and the last speech was, I thought, rather full of irrelevancies. The hon. Lady's challenge to hon. Members on this side of the Committee is interesting, but whatever she may say about the intentions or otherwise of members of the Front Opposition Bench when they were in power, the rank and file on this side know nothing about any pledge, and naturally when a test comes before us we refuse to take any responsibility. I want to ask to what extent hon. Members opposite are committed to a means test, and to what extent it is to be applied? We are entitled to know what it means. Whatever may be said about unemployment insurance, the simple fact remains, that the nation has accepted responsibility for the maintenance of the unemployed if they cannot find work. The degree of that maintenance must be
determined, and it is the determination of the degree of maintenance around which there is so much controversy. As far as unemployment insurance benefits go, and so far as public assistance committees may be called in to supplement that, fund, I should like to know whether the Government have considered the full effect upon public assistance committees of the claims which will be made by the unemployed. Have they considered the burden that is going to be imposed upon public assistance committees in industrial areas, a burden which, in my opinion, is calculated to break down local government in a very short time?
7.0 p.m.
In my own constituency there is the town of Crewe, a comparatively small town, but with an unemployed figure of between 3,000 and 4,000 people. There has been rationalisation in the local industry, men are not likely to be employed there for any considerable length of time and there is no prospect of re-opening some of the processes. Changes have gone on; and men have been out a work for years at a time, large numbers of them for many months, and undoubtedly the transitional benefit proposals of the Government's Economy Bill and the proposals to impose charges on local authorities are bound to reflect themselves on those conditions. If local authorities have to be appealed to by these men, what is going to be the effect in that locality, where local tradesmen rely entirely on local industry and where men, who are fitted to the work of that industry, good men in themselves, are unable to find work and unable to move from that locality? The result must inevitably be that the appeal to public assistance committees will impose a

burden that local authorities cannot bear. We shall be departing from the principle that the responsibility has to be spread over the whole of the nation. Unless that responsibility is recognised, residential towns and seaside towns with no unemployment charges will escape any responsibility in that connection.

We must continue to press the Government on this matter until they declare how they can show local authorities to get over their difficulties and how these industrial towns can survive these troubles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Find work"] Yes, if you can. The ideas of hon. Members opposite will take a long time to find any work for the unemployed, if, indeed, they produce any work at all. The unemployed cannot wait for these nostrums to develop. They must be fed in the meantime. It is no good telling a man on transitional benefit, who has to go to the public assistance committee when the public assistance committee is absolutely ruined as the result of the Government's proposals, that there is going to be a tariff in a few months. There must be support for these people at once. The question is immediate and pressing. The Government have a grave responsibility for imposing on local authorities and public assistance committees a charge which should be spread over the whole of the nation in order to distribute the liability. The point affects my own constituency and other industrial areas like my own all over the country, and it must be faced. I hope that the Government will give us a clear answer.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 238.

Division No. 491.]
AYES.
[7.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Buchan, John


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Berry, Sir George
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. t.


Albery, Irving James
Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Allen. Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Birkett, W. Norman
Butler, R. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Blindell, James
Butt, Sir Alfred


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Calne, Hall-, Derwent


Astor, Viscountess
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Campbell, E. T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Boyce, Leslie
Carver, Major W. H.


Atkinson, C.
Bracken, B.
Castle Stewart, Earl of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I of Thanet)
Broadbent, Colonel J,
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)


Balniel, Loro
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.O.(Berks, Newb'y)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lent H. (Ox. Univ.)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hanbury, C.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Blrm.,W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Harbord, A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chapman, Sir S.
Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Christie, J. A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Purbrick, R.


Church, Major A. G.
Haslam, Henry C.
Pybus, Percy John


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsbotham, H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Remer, John R,


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Colman, N. C. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Colville, Major D. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurd, Percy A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stratford)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Rodd, Rt. Hon Sir James Rennell


Cowan, D. M.
Iveagh, Countess of
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cranbourne, Viscount
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Ross, Ronald D.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Crott, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Salmon, Major I.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Holford
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Savery, S. S.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Scott, James


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Dawson, Sir Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Simms, Major-General J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)


Dixey, A. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Skelton, A. N.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Smithers, Waldron


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lymington, Viscount
Somerset, Thomas


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Somerville, D. G. (Wlllesden, East)


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. ot W.)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ferguson, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Fielden, E. B.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Foot, Isaac
Marjoribanks, Edward
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Ford, Sir P. J
Markham, S. F.
Thompson, Luke


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Thomson, Sir F.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Galbralth, J. F. W.
Millar, J. D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ganzoni, Sir John
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Train, J.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Turton, Robert Hugh


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Gillett, George M.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison. W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Muirhead, A. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Gower, Sir Robert
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Wells, Sydney R.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nathan, Major H. L.
White, H. G.


Granville, E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Gray, Milner
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
O'Connor, T. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Womersley, W. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Klngsley


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peake, Capt. Osbert



Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R.. (Orkney & Zetland)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Mr. Glassey and Captain Wallace.


Hammersley, S. S.
Perkins, W. R. D.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, Watt)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Alpass, J. H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Amman, Charles George




Angell, Sir Norman
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Arnott, John
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Aske, Sir Robert
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Attlee, Clement Richard
Herriotts, J.
Pole, Major D. Q.


Ayles, Walter
Hicks, Ernest George
Potts, John S.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Price, M. P.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hoffman, P. C.
Quinell, D. J. K.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hollins, A.
Raynes, W. R.


Barr, James
Hopkin, Daniel
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Horrabin, J. F.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Isaacs, George
Ritson, J.


Benson, G,
Jenkins, Sir William
Romeril, H. G.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rowson, Guy


Bowen, J. W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvartown)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sanders, W. S.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sandham, E.


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Scrymgeour, E.


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scurr, John


Brooke, W.
Kinley, J.
Sexton, Sir James


Brothers, M.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Sherwood, G. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Shield, George William


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Shillaker, J. F.


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
shinwell, E.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorke, W. R. Elland)
Lawson, John James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cameron, A. G.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Simmons, C. J.


Cape, Thomas
Leach, W.
Sinkinson, George


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S W.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sitch, Charles H.


Chater, Daniel
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Clarke, J. S.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H.B.(Kelghley)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Longbottom, A. W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Compton, Joseph
Longden, F.
Sorensen, R.


Cove, William G.
Lunn, William
Stamford, Thomas W,


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stephen, Campbell


Daggar, George
McElwee, A.
Strauss, G. R.


Dallas, George
McEntee, V. L.
Sullivan, J.


Dalton, Hugh
McKinlay, A.
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
MacLaren, Andrew
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Day, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Tillett, Ben


Dukes, C.
McShane, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, Charles
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Toole, Joseph


Dunnico, H.
Manning, E. L.
Tout, W. J.


Ede, James Chuter
Mansfield, W.
Townend, A. E.


Edmunds, J. E.
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marcus, M.
Turner, Sir Ben


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Marley, J.
Vaughan, David


Egan, W. H.
Marshall, Fred
Viant, S. P.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Mathers, Georgt
Walkden, A. G.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Maxton, James
Walker, J.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, K.)
Messer, Fred
Wallace, H. W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Middleton, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Mills, J. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gill, T. H.
Mliner, Major J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gossling, A. G.
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Gould, F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Morley, Ralph
West, F. R.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Westwood, Joseph


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mort, D. L.
Whiteley, William (Btaydon)


Groves, Thomas E.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Muff, G.
Williams, David (Swansea. East)


Hall, F. (York. W. R. Normanton)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Murnin, Hugh
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, Capt W. G. (Portsmouth, C)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Noel Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
Palin, John Henry
Wise, E. F.


Hastings, Dr. Samerville
Paling, Wilfrid
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Haycock, A. W.
Palmer, E. T.
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hayes, John Henry
Perry, S. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to the word "for," in line 11.
As the Committee know, the Unemployment Insurance Fund is now divided in two parts. The Committee have
dealt with one part, which represents a charge upon the Exchequer, and we are now called upon to deal with the fund proper. My Amendment is to exclude the Government's attempt so to increase the contributions of the workers that they will be responsible, with the Exchequer, under the deficiency rule, for carrying on the fund. A very important point should be noted by the Committee. Whereas the last Amendment meant the taking of £10,000,000 from the workers, this proposal lays a further charge upon die workers of £22,800,000. The increase in the contributions direct means a saving of £10,000,000. Along with the increased contributions there is a limit to the time during which a man may get benefit. That represents £12,800,000. So if you take the £10,000,000 extra charge upon the workers, or, as the White Paper puts it, the saving, and then take the limitation of 26 weeks benefit, it means an extra charge upon the workers of £22,800,000. With the Amendment that we have just dealt with it means, further, that the worker has been charged to the extent of over £32,000,000.
The Minister will say, of course, that the £10,000,000 saving owing to increased contributions is £10,000,000 divided between the employers and the workers. As a matter of fact that is true only on the surface. The workers' contributions are to be increased by 3d. a week, and those of the employers by 2d. a week. It is a fair assumption that there is directly out of that £10,000,000 a charge of £6,000,000 upon the worker. But everyone knows that when it comes to paying these contributions in actual practice the worker pays the employer's contribution. That is admitted in the makeup of wages in the mining industry. I have here a wages bill of the milling industry in Durham for the past month. A definite charge is made for the cost of production. What are called the employers' contributions are charged to "cost of production other than wages."
So that, before wages are paid, this amount is charged to cost of production, and ultimately and inevitably, according to the method of fixing wages, the worker pays the contribution that the employer is said to pay. There is no doubt about that. In the first place, the worker pays £6,000,000 out of the £10,000,000.
The statement is unchallenged and regularly made in this House that the worker actually pays out of his wages indirectly under the head of cost of production the amount that the employer is said to pay. At any rate there is no challenge about that so far as the mining industry is concerned. Therefore, we have £10,000,000 for increased contributions, £12,800,000 saving by the limitations of the 26 weeks' period, and in addition there is a £10,000,000 saving upon which the Committee have just voted.
It may seem to the Committee that 3d. a week increase is not a very big charge. It seems nothing to us, but when you have men who are getting one or two days' work, or perhaps three, and who are fortunate if they get four days' work in many of the coalfields, and when they receive only 6s. 6d. a day and go home with something less than £1 week after week, and you take 3d. off that amount, it is a vital thing to the worker. Those of us who are in close touch with these areas and know something about the welfare work and the need of the people, know that a penny means a great deal in cases of that kind. We say that to take a further 3d., or, as I say, 5d., amounting to millions a year, from the workers, or ultimately £32,000,000 a year, is to do the very thing that the Government say they are trying to avoid. Whether the amount be £1,000,000 or £30,000,000 it is, as far as these people are concerned, taking it from necessities—not from luxuries, not from amusements, but from actual necessities, boots, clothes, food. Those are the things that are to be taken from the workers as a result of this increased contribution and the reduced period of benefit.
The Minister in his speech just now paid considerable attention to the Fund rather than to the transitional benefit. I hope that the Committee realise what they have done. In the last Vote the Committee relegated one-third of the whole of the unemployed, those in the transition stage, to investigation by the Poor Law. I was amazed to hear one speech this week upon that matter. The bulk of the men concerned are men of the finest type, the finest character, men who have always counted it an honourable thing and almost implicit in their character to steer clear of the Poor Law. I would remind the hon. and reverend Gentleman who
made that statement concerning these people, that there are members of his church who will have to submit to that test. I was very pleased to hear the Minister state that one-half of the people who are on the Unemployment Insurance Fund at the present time have never had any benefit at all. I wish that that had been said more often inside and outside this House before. I recall the great astonishment with which the statement was received. There are English newspapers which have kept facts like that concealed for party and political purposes, and they have done infinite harm to this country abroad by that conceal went. Yet these people who have for years paid into this Fund find themselves now in the position that they are limited to a 26 weeks' period, although they have paid their contributions for years.
The Government have dealt unfairly and shamefully with this class of people. The Super-tax payer may say that he has made a sacrifice. The Income Tax payer may say the same thing. They do not know the beginning of the word. The Government, in adding a £32,000,000 charge to the great mass of the workers of the country and thus robbing them of necessities, have done a thing for which they will have to answer in the country, and, as far as I am concerned I hope that the opportunity for testing the country will come soon.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Milner Gray): As there is practically

only one minute left in which to deal with the very moderate statements put forward by the hon. Gentleman in objection to these increased contributions, he will forgive me if I do not go into those statements in detail. There is no need to controvert the statements in detail because the object of this proposal is the financial stability of the fund itself. I would merely point out that when the fund was started it was worked on the basis of a, 331/3 per cent. contribution from the State. What is the position at present? After making all the savings and after having the increased contributions, the position of the fund will be that out of £117,000,000 chargeable on the fund, as the estimated expense of next year, there will be contributed by the workers and the employers £38,000,000 and there will be contributed by the State £79,000,000. I do not think I need say more in justification of this proposal. The State is increasing immensely its contribution to the fund and in view of the condition in which the fund is, we are compelled to ask for these increased contributions.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd September, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 233.

Division No. 492.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boothby, R. J. G.
Caralet, Captain Victor A.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Albery, Irving Jamas
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Barton


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Boyce, Leslie
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.SIr J.A. (Blrm.,W.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Bracken, B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Chapman, Sir S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Briscoe, Richard George
Christie, J. A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Church, Major A. G.


Aske, Sir Robert
Brown, Col. D. C, (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Astor, Viscountess
Buchan, John
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Atholl, Duchess of
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cockeill, Brig.-General Sir George,


Atkinson, C.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Colfox, Major William Philip


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Colman, N. C. D.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Butler, R. A.
Colville, Major D. J.


Balniel, Lord
Butt, Sir Alfred
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Cooper, A. Duff


Bollairs, Commander Carlyan
Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Courtauld, Malar J. S.


Berry, Sir George
Campbell, E. T.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Carver, Major W. H.
Cowan, D. M.


Bevan, S. J. (Helborn)
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Cranborne, Viscount


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.


Birkett, W. Norman
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Blindell, James
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurd, Percy A
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Remer, John R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Dairymle-white, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Iveagh, Countess of
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Ross, Ronald D.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Dixey, A. C.
Knight, Holford
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Knox, Sir Alfred
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salmon, Major I.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dugdale, Capt, T. L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Elmley, Viscount
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Savery, S. S.


England, Colonel A.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Scott James


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker- Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Simms, Major-General J.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Ferguson, Sir John
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)


Fielden, E. B.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Skelton, A. N.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Smithers, Waldron


Forestier-Watker, Sir L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Somerset, Thomas


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mander, Geoffrey le M,
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Stanley. Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Gillett, George M.
Markham, S. F.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Glassey, A. E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Millar, J. D.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Gower, Sir Robert
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Granville, E.
Monsell, Eyret, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Thompson, Luke


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thomson, Sir F.


Gray, Milner
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Muirhead, A. J.
Train, J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nathan, Major H. L.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hammersley, S. S.
O'Connor, T. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hanbury, C.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wells, Sydney R.


Harbord, A.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
White, H. G.


Harris, Percy A.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hartlngton, Marquess of
Penny, Sir George
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Haslam, Henry C.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxt'd.Henley)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Womersley, W. J.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Purbrick, R.



Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Pybus, Percy John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Captain Margesson and Major McKenzie Wood.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ramsbotham, H.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ayles, Walter
Benson, G.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Bowen, J. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Alpass, J. H.
Barnes, Alfred John
Broad, Francis Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Barr, James
Bromfield, William


Angell, Sir Norman
Batey, Joseph
Bromley, J.


Arnott, John
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brooke, W.




Brothers, M.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, Wast)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Romeril, H. G.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rowson, Guy


Burgess, F. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Cameron, A. G.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Sanders, W. S.


Cape, Thomas
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sandham, E.


Carter, W. (St. Pancrat, S.W.)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Scrymgeour, E.


Chater, Daniel
Lawrence, Susan
Scurr, John


Clarke, J. S.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sexton, Sir James


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sherwood, G. H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leach, W.
Shield, George William


Compton, Joseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cove, William G.
Leonard, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shinwell, E.


Daggar, George
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dallas, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Simmons, C. J.


Dalton, Hugh
Longbottom, A. W.
Sinkinson, George


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Longden, F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Day, Harry
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dukes, C.
McElwee, A.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H.B.(Keighley)


Duncan, Charles
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Dunnico, H.
McKinlay, A.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Ede, James Chuter
MacLaren, Andrew
Sorensen, R.


Edmunds, J. E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Stephen, Campbell


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McShane, John James
Strauss, G. R.


Egan, W. H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sullivan, J.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Manning, E. L.
Sutton, J. E.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mansfield, W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
March, S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gibbins, Joseph
Marcus, M.
Tillett, Ben


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Marley, J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gill, T. H.
Marshall, Fred
Toole, Joseph


Gossling, A. G.
Mathers, George
Tout, W. J.


Gould, F.
Maxton, James
Townend, A. E.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Eden., Cent.)
Messer, Fred
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Middleton, G.
Turner, Sir Ben


Granted, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mills, J. E.
Vaughan, David


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major J.
Viant, S. P.


Groves, Thomas E.
Montague, Frederick
Walkden, A. G.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walker, J.


Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)
Morley, Ralph
Wallace, H. W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, s.)
Watkins, F. C.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunternilne)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mort, D. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Muff, G.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
Muggeridge, H. T.
West, F. R.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Murnin, Hugh
Westwood, Joseph


Haycock, A. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)


Hayday, Arthur
Noel Baker, P. J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hayes, John Henry
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Herriotts, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hicks, Ernest George
Perry, S. F.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hoffman, P. C.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hollins, A.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wise, E. F.


Hopkin, Daniel
Pole, Major D. G.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Horrabin, J. F.
Potts, John S.
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Price, M. P.



Isaacs, George
Quibell, D. J. K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jenkins, Sir William
Raynes, W. R.
Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Half-past Seven of tine Clock at this day's Sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 234.

Division No. 493.]
AYES.
[7.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Astor, Viscountess


Albery, Irving James
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Atholl, Duchess of


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cont'l)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Atkinson, C,


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Jamas I.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.


Balniel, Lord
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ferguson, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fielden, E. B.
Mander, Geoffrey I. M.


Berry, Sir George
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Marjoribanks, Edward


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Foot, Isaac
Markham, S. F.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Birkett, W. Norman
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Millar, J. D.


Blindell, James
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Moore, Lleut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Boyce, Leslie
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Bracken, B.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gillett, George M.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Glassey, A. E.
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brown. Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gower, Sir Robert
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Buchan, John
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Buchan-Hepburn, P, G. T.
Granville, E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gray, Milner
O'Connor, T. J.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Butler, R. A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edwa.'d
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peake, Captain Osbert


Campbell, E, T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Sir George


Carver, Major W. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)
Hanbury, C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Harbord, A.
Purbrick, R.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Harris, Percy A.
Pybus, Percy John


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Blrm-,W.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsbotham, H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Christie, J. A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Church, Major A. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Renter, John R.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Colville, Major D. J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cooper, A. Duff

Ross, Ronald D.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cowan, D. M.
Iveagh, Countess of
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Salmon, Major I.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, Welt)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Savery, S. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Holford
Scott, James


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Simms, Major-General J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Skelton, A. N.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Smithers, Waldron


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dixey, A. C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Somerset, Thomas


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Spender-Clay. Colonel H.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.




Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Winosor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Thompson, Luke
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Thomson, Sir F.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Womersley, W. J.


Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Water-house, Captain Charles
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wayland, Sir William A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wells, Sydney R.



Train, J.
White, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Captain Margesson and Major McKenzie Wood.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mort, D. L.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Alpass, J. H.
Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
Muff, G.


Ammon, Charles George
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muggeridge, H. T.


Angell, Sir Norman
Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh


Arnott, John
Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Noel Baker, P. J.


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Palin, John Henry


Barnes, Alfred John
Herriotts, J.
Paling, Wilfrid


Barr, James
Hicks, Ernest George
Palmer, E. T.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W.R. Wentworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hoffman, P. C.
Perry, S. F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. w.


Benson, G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Bevon, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Horrabin, J. F.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bowen, J. W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pole, Ma|or D. G.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Isaacs, George
Potts, John S.


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, M. P.


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brooke, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Brothers, M.
Jones, J J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Brown, w. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ritson, J.


Buchanan, G.
Kenwortby, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Romeril, H. G.


Burgess, F. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cameron, A. G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Cape, Thomas
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sanders, W. S.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lawrence, Susan
Sandham, E.


Chater, Daniel
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Scrymgeour, E.


Clarke, J. S.
Lawson, John James
Scurr, John


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sexton, Sir James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leach, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Compton, Joseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sherwood, G. H.


Cove, William G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shield, George William


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Daggar, George
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Dallas, George
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shinwell, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Logan, David Gilbert
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Longbottom, A. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Longden, F.
Sinkinson, George


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.


Dukes, C.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Duncan, Charles
McElwee, A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dunnico, H.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H.B.(Keighley)


Ede, James Chuter
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Edmunds, J, E.
MacLaren, Andrew
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sorensen, R.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Egan, W. H.
McShane, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Strauss, G. R.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Manning, E. L.
Sullivan, J.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mansfield, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
March, S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Marcus, M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gill, T. H.
Marley, J.
Tillett, Ben


Gossling, A. G,
Marshall, Fred
Tinker, John Joseph


Gould, F.
Mathers, George
Toole, Joseph


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Maxton, James
Tout, W. J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Messer, Fred
Townend, A. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mills, J. E.
Turner, Sir Ben


Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major J.
Vaughan, David


Grundy, Thomas W.
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walkden, A. G.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Morley, Ralph
Walker, J.




Wallace, H. W.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Watkins, F. C.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Wise, E. F.


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Wellock, Willred
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Welsh, James (Paisley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)



West, F. R.
Williams, T. (York, Don valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Westwood, Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

Clause 2 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.—(Services in respect of which Orders in Council may be made under this Act.)

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out line 4.
It will be apparent to the Committee at once that the effect of my Amendment, if it were carried, would be to exclude the subject of education and educational work generally from the purview of the Orders-in-Council which it is proposed shall be issued in consequence of the passing of this Bill. Before I proceed to argue my case, I think it is right and proper that we should express our firm protest against the fact that we are limited to an exceedingly small measure of time for the discussion of the highly important subject that is now before us.
The first point that I wish to raise is this: Hon. Members opposite, supporters of the Government, have been comforting themselves and their constituents with the reflection that the proposals which the Government have made with regard to educational work generally will be of a purely temporary character. I want to ask at this early juncture: Is it strictly the case that what is proposed will be of a temporary character? If I understand the position aright—and I fortify myself in this judgment by a reference to what the Prime Minister said on the Second Reading of the Bill—once these Orders-in-Council have been promulgated they cannot be annulled without the consent of Parliament. I will read the relevant passage of the Prime Minister's speech on 11th September:
An Order-in-Council issued has the effect of an Act of Parliament and can be changed only by an Act of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th September, 1931; col. 421; Vol. 256.]
There are provisions no doubt adumbrated with regard to educational work which everybody hopes may be purely
temporary, but there are other provisions which undoubtedly stand a very great chance of becoming far more permanent in character. If it be true that some of these changes, such as the change with regard to grant regulations, may be of a permanent character, it is obvious that the case for removing education from the purview of the Orders-in-Council is strengthened thereby. When we discuss this subject of education, we always understand that there are three interests directly affected, namely, the teachers, the local education authorities, and finally, and not by any means the least important—indeed, the most important—the interests of the child. I shall take them in that order, because they happen to be discussed in that order in Command Paper 3952 and in the explanatory Circular 1413.
First, as to the question of the teachers: We are all aware as Members of this House that the teachers of this country have expressed themselves in the firmest possible language concerning the proposals of the Government. I will come to the present position in a moment, but I think it is not inappropriate to invite the Committee to examine why it is that this grave resentment has arisen, and the first obvious reason, I think, is this: There has been a suspicion in the minds of the teachers that under the cloak of economy an attack has been made upon a profession and a piece of State activity which to many people has become their pet aversion. Many people have the idea that the whole of this controversy about teachers' salaries has arisen from the difficulty with regard to our financial stringency. What did the majority Report of the May Committee itself say? I invite the Committee to read the paragraph on page 59:
We regard the reductions we have proposed "—
I ask the Committee to observe the next few words—
not as sacrifices necessitated by national financial stringency, but as readjustments necessary to re-establish fair relativities
over the field of Government and local authority servants and with wage-earners generally.
8.0 p.m.
In other words, if that paragraph means anything at all, it means that they frankly admit that they were not making these regulations to deal with the financial stringency at all. They were concerned with dealing with another problem entirely, and a problem, in my judgment, which they were not called upon to deal with at all. They were not invited to level up wages between wage earners and teachers. That was not their job. They were not invited to say whether teachers were too well paid or too ill paid. That was not their job. They have seized upon this opportunity to effect certain readjustments in order to make a better relativity between the wages of Government servants and the wages of wage earners generally. I do not wish to be unkind to this Committee, but peeping through every reference to education in their report is a deliberate intention to reduce as far as possible every activity of the State in the department of education. Teachers felt therefore that their profession as a profession was being unjustly singled out. They objected also because they were called upon to bear a special burden—not as citizens; to that they have no objection; no one objects as a citizen to being called upon to bear a fair share, providing the sacrifices are equal. Here they were called upon as teachers, because of the particular profession which they follow, and they were rightly justified in protesting against being especially singled out. Their demand was not one for special privileges, as I understand it, but a demand for protection against special prejudices.
If the teachers took the Prime Minister's slogan "Equality of sacrifice" seriously, certainly no one on the other side has a right to complain. If there is to be equality of sacrifice all round, no one can complain, and I am sure that the teachers cannot complain. But what, in point of fact, has happened? They are being attacked at four points. First they will, like everybody else, be mulcted in the after effects of the change from the Gold Standard; the increase in the cost of living will affect them like other citizens, and they cannot complain of that. Like other citizens,
too, they will be mulcted in extra payments for Income Tax. Over and above that, a sort of capital levy has been imposed upon their incomes, a cut has been effected in their wages. At first, the proposal was 15 per cent.—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Kingsley Wood): 20 per cent.

Mr. JONES: No; the cut proposed to the House was 15 per cent. That has now been changed to 10 per cent. This double burden, everyone will agree, is extremely heavy. I say again that I do not believe that teachers or anyone else will ask for special exemption since it involves all citizens who come within the Income Tax proposals. The third burden, however, is imposed upon them because of the particular calling to which they belong. It is heavy in many ways, and I will take one. Those of us who have had the misfortune to be obliged to buy a house in and around London in recent years know what that means. With people who have very modest incomes, the burden is one which is extremely grievous to bear. House purchase commitments, therefore, will fall with exceptional severity upon those people whose incomes are to be reduced. It seems specially unjust to mulct people who have tried to be prudent in days of comparative well-being. If anyone should have remembered the danger of vesting injustice upon the prudent, it should surely have been the chairman of the May Committee, who ought to have known above everybody else that the more the prudent contract the more the Prudential expands.
Now the position has changed, and the magnitude of the cut originally proposed to the House has been limited. The proposal now is that it should be 10 per cent. instead of 15. I have no right to speak officially on behalf of the teachers; I speak for myself; but I presume that teachers, like other people, will prefer a In per cent. cut to a 15 per cent. cut. I invite the Committee to observe, however, that the basic objection which teachers advanced and which we advanced is not removed. The attack upon teachers qua teachers, the singling out of teachers from among their fellow citizens, still exists as part of the present proposals. If I am told that teachers' salaries are too high, I would reply that the only way of challenging that is by
using the proper machinery for the purpose. One of the most deadly things that has been done by this proposal has been to attack the principle of collective bargaining.
I do not know what the attitude of the teachers will be in regard to this matter, but I will put this question to the President of the Board, whom I congratulate on his occupancy of his present office. There are two groups of teachers whose case is very present to our minds. First, there are the older teachers round about the age of 60, who hope to remain until 65, and others who are younger and are hoping to leave at 60. The pensions of these people will be dependent upon the average salaries which they earn (luring the last five years of their service. If their pensions are to be involved, as they must be, then this cut for the oldest teachers must follow them to the end of their days. That is a particularly hard and severe injustice. I will not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me a firm answer to-night, but I will ask him, if he wants to retain even the small measure of good will that is left among the teachers, to consider as sympathetically as possible these particularly difficult cases.
There is another class about which I am concerned, and about which the right hon. Gentleman himself should be concerned, because we are both involved in it as a matter of honour. During the passage of the Bill to raise the school age, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Sir C. Trevelyan), as President of the Board of Education, took steps to invite the authorities to provide places for an extra number of young teachers passing college. The present President is involved in this matter as a matter of honour, because the Liberal party of those days urged us in every possible way to push ahead with this Measure. Thousands of these young people passed through colleges; some are emerging this year, and some will emerge next year. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me—for I regard it as a matter of conscience, because I was partly responsible in this matter—that these young people will be found places in the schools in spite of the great cry for economy? They have made great sacrifices already; they have spent many scores of pounds, to put it mildly, and
not one penny of unemployment benefit will be available for them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to give us assurances upon that matter to-night.
I pass to the second interest which I indicated, namely, the local authorities. Certain consequences follow from the change which the Government have announced. The old arrangement was that the State paid 60 per cent. by way of grant towards the cost of teachers' salaries. Under the new proposals that is to be 50 per cent. There was also,. as first proposed, to be a cut of 15 per cent. That left 85 per cent. to be found between the local authorities and the Board of Education. On a fifty-fifty basis, the local authorities would find 42½ per cent. and the State 42½ per cent. To meet that extra burden of 2½per cent. on the local authority, the Government indicated that they would raise the grant per unit of average attendance by 4s. 6d. Now the situation has changed. Instead of the cut being 15 per cent., it is now 10 per cent. The proportion therefore for local authorities and the State becomes 45–45, so that the local authorities are mulcted in a loss of 5 per cent. instead of 2½ per cent. I invite the President to tell us to-night, because it is highly important and the local authorities ought to know as speedily as possible, what is the proposal of the Government concerning this extra burden.
There is another point which I want to urge. I do not stress it over much, for there may be less in it than appears on the surface, but if this system is to be stabilised for a period of 10 years or more, it might become more important than it is now. Those who took part in the discussions on the Bill to raise the school age will remember that attention was drawn to the declining child population. The figures I have show that between now and 1938 the child population in schools between five and 14 will decline by something like 500,000 or 600,000. That will mean a heavy sum at 4s. 6d., but if you double it, and make it 9s., it will be heavier. There are particular areas where depopulation has gone on at a much more rapid rate than the average. In the Rhondda Valley, for instance, the depopulation has been particularly heavy. Therefore, it is important to know whether this compensation of 4s. 6d. as it was, or of 9s.
as I hope it will be, will be enough to cover the whole of the loss which falls upon the local authorities in respect of the changes in grants.
There are friends of mine who would like to say a word on the question of the Deficiency Grant Regulations speak for myself, and express no one's views but my own. I have no copious tears to shed about the removal of the Deficiency Grant Regulations. I admit there are areas which will be hit more heavily than others. London will lose something like £822,000, but why should I alarm myself about London? London is not alarming itself. I saw it stated the day before yesterday that London would be heart and soul behind the Government, and so, apparently, they are going to preserve a frigid but calculated silence. Would such an indulgent attitude have been preserved if a Labour Government had made this proposal?
Next I want to raise the question of building grants, and here we really must have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. Reports which come to us indicate that all over the country, local authorities are positively losing their heads over this business of economy. I have heard of authorities who have suddenly stopped the building of schools on which they had started. In truth they could carry on that building, and the right hon. Gentleman could not interfere with the increased grant of 50 per cent. which we gave instead of 25 per cent. in respect of certain buildings started between certain dates. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is to be economy that we should not let it run wild, for the only result will be that the whole business of educational reorganisation will be ruined under a false plea that somehow or other the State is thereby being helped.
The third interest I want to put before the Committee is the interest of the child. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear those cheers, and would ask hon. Members opposite whether they can honestly say that the principle of equality of sacrifice is being applied to the children in the elementary schools? Are we calling upon the children of the country as a whole to bear equal sacrifice? I picked up an interesting paragraph the other day in the "Evening News," where I ought to get this sort of information. It said:
Eton boys returned to school to-day after the summer holidays. At the end of last half 102 boys left, and to-day 120 new boys arrived.
It then went on to speak about the total number of boys at the school, and so on. At Eton the number joining the school shows an increase of 18 per cent. over the number who left.

Mr. CAMPBELL: All paid for by their parents!

Mr. JONES: That does not alter my argument. Admitting that they are all paid for, my observation is that those people are making no sacrifice at the expense of their children, The it parents say that, whatever the State asks of them, their children are not to suffer, and what I am pointing out is that every single proposal brought before us to-night involves, in one way or another, a lessening of the opportunities for the children in a certain walk of life. There are to be savings. I do not know the exact figure, call it "X," but may I be told at whose expense those savings are to be made? I invite the Committee to observe two ominous paragraphs, one in the White Paper and the other in the Explanatory Circular. The Circular says, speaking of cases where they allow a certain expansion to take place:
Generally speaking, however, it would only be possible to consider sanctioning additional annual charges in such cases in so far as they are covered by countervailing economies.
Whatever expenditure takes place on one arm of our educational body, as it were, there is to be a countervailing economy on the other arm—larger classes in small classrooms, and therefore overcrowded classrooms, increased fees in many areas. The right hon. Gentleman talks in his White Paper of allowing local authorities to consider proposals for increasing fees. In the poorest areas of this country the fees are already staggeringly high. I was amazed, when I read the records at the Board last year, to find that in counties like Suffolk and Wiltshire, country areas where children of agricultural labourers want a chance, the fees range from 12 to 14 and 16 and even 18 guineas a year, a far too formidable figure for the people there to contemplate. Even if we only stabilised that position we should still leave a fearful handicap
against the educational advance of those young people.
Lastly, I want to ask this question. For some years we have been engaged at the Board of Education—the Noble Lord opposite took his share, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle took his share and my right hon. Friend who sits beside me played his part also—in a great effort to reorganise schools. Yes, the Parliamentary Secretary can shake his head and lift it in great contempt of this business.

Sir K. WOOD: I did not do that. I was only wondering what the hon. Member was going to say about the late President.

Mr. JONES: Well, the right hon. Gentleman has a queer way of expressing his wonder. I want to ask what is to happen to the great scheme of reorganisation of education which we call the Hadow reorganisation. Is it to come to a dead stop? Are you stabilising it in places where there has been a great advance and also in other areas where no advance at all has been recorded, thus leaving some children with a larger measure of opportunity and some comparatively none at all? It is of the highest importance that we should know whether it is the policy of the Government to bring to an end for the present the Hadow reorganisation. In this matter we are not speaking as Members of the Labour party. Business men have applauded this reorganisation, because they believe that it is not only in the highest interests of the child but of the State, from a commercial and industrial point of view.
May I add that if we are really to equip our children so that they can hold their own in the world the only way of doing it is to equip them adequately in the schools and workshops of our land. I resent very much the implication which I find in the May Committee's Report as to the position of education in the national balance-sheet. As a matter of fact, we cannot afford to cry a halt. I should call it a retreat in response to a trumpet of gold. If Britain is in difficulties, at least let it be courageous enough not to take it out of the Britons of to-morrow. I think this is a shabby attack on the part of those who are re-
fusing to shoulder the great burden of citizenship in our land. This Bill if carried will mortgage the future intellectual resources of our country, and it is because of that that we on this side challenge the philosophy underlying it. In that spirit, I have moved the Amendment.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Donald Maclean): I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman opposite who has invited hon. Members to give me a cheer, because I can assure the Committee that the duty which I am endeavouring to discharge to-night is one which does not give me any pleasure. I hold the view which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) that money spent on education is one of the best long-range investments for the nation. It had, however, been said by the late Minister in July that our education was restrained by financial difficulties, nay more by the financial perils which were affecting every country in the world.
I will now deal with the cuts, and I think it will be better if I briefly reply to the points which have been raised, because I realise that a very large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the Debate. I appreciate the wealth of knowledge with which the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education spoke, and I think the Committee will realise that my experience at the Board of Education has been brief and hectic. Reference has been made to the position of the teachers, and I will deal with that question first. In all fairness, I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that a reduction in the salaries of the teachers was brought to their notice some time ago before the financial position of the country became acute. The local education authorities in April last gave notice that the salaries of the teachers coming within the ambit of the Burnham scales would be subject tore-vision and that the whole question would be re-opened in April next. Therefore, to that extent the teachers were affected by notice, and they were aware of the movement—a very definite movement—between themselves and the education authorities with regard to the reduction of their salaries. Negotiations were opened, and I understand that they broke
down because there was not common agreement on the point that some reduction was necessary. The teachers would not admit that, although the local authorities insisted upon it. Therefore, as far as notice is concerned, I think I am entitled to ask the Committee to recollect those facts.
The next point which was raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly was one upon which a great deal of public attention has been centred, and that was that the teachers had been singled out for this' drastic financial treatment. I have considered that point as fairly as I could, and I am bound to say that I cannot see how the teachers have been singled out any more than the soldiers, the sailors, the judges, the policemen, and the civil servants. I cannot see where the equity of that claim really lies. A very large number of hon. Members syrnpathised with the claim of the teachers that they had had an unfairly heavy burden placed upon them, but to say that they have been singled out in this national emergency is a very unfair statement to make, and I do not think that that claim has been proved. The teachers were not singled out in the sense which has been claimed, although it is true that they have recently had a very heavy burden placed upon them which I do not in the least wish to minimise.
I do not think that I am giving away any Cabinet secrets when I say that the question of the teachers' remuneration was one which occupied hours of Cabinet consideration; in fact, that question dominated the whole proceedings of a Cabinet meeting, and it was not until after very careful consideration had been given to the question that a decision was arrived at. Up to the present there does not seem to have been any special appreciation of the effect of the reduction of the cut from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. We have to remember the financial perils which had to be faced in the Budget presented to the House for this half of the present year and for the 12 months dating from 1st April next. We have also to remember that the concessions granted by the Government have wiped out the whole of the estimated surplus and very nearly £1,000,000 more. That is a very grave responsibility for the Government to take in view of the national
position, and I think we should give credit where credit is due.
I turn now to another matter on which my hon. Friend addressed me, and on which I count myself in more sympathetic agreement with him. I do not know how far I can comfort him, but I say at once that if I can I certainly will. With regard to the question of pensions, it is commonly said that teachers are not being treated as the police are. My hon. Friend, and also my right hon. Friend the ex-President of the Board, know that there are great and vital differences between the two Services in regard to pensions. The policeman takes his pension at the rate of the last week of his service, whatever it may be, while, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the pension of the teacher is based on the five years' average. I am very greatly in sympathy with the case of the elder teachers of 58 or 59, who are approaching the age of 60, when they may, if they so choose, elect to retire. I must, however, point out that, if such a teacher does retire after October, 1932, a year hence, his loss will be only 2 per cent., because, of course, the average of the lower years will be diluted into the five years.
Further, may I just point out, though only as a factor which I think ought to be taken into consideration, that, as far as the older teachers are concerned, they came into the benefits of this pension scheme on exceptionally favourable terms. They all came in, no matter what their age was, in 1922, under the very creditable pension scheme which operates between the State and the teaching profession. The only answer that I would give to my hon. Friend is that, if it is financially possible, the Department will, I am sure, be most giad to see how far they can meet these cases. I fear, however, and I must be quite frank about it, that while these hard times last, for some years ahead—certainly 18 months or two years ahead—I see no likelihood of myself or my successor, come when he will and to whatever party he belongs, being able to give any other answer than that which I, with great regret, give to-night. I should like to talk with the representatives of the unions. I think it is one of the best things in the world to hear what people have to say, and I shall be delighted to receive any representations that are made to the Department.
With regard to another point—a very important point—namely, the question of unemployment, there is not the slightest doubt that the House of Commons did offer inducements to young people to enter this profession. In those days bright hopes were held out with regard to the profession, that, with the development of higher education and the raising of the school-leaving age, it was at any rate a profession to which the young might confidently pledge their future. I quite agree. I have made a very careful inquiry into the matter, and, while I can give no pledge, as my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend well know, yet, as far as I have been able to ascertain, there is scarcely any calling connected with the State in which those who are at present leaving college have less reason to fear unemployment. It may come; I cannot say; but I would refer my hon. Friend to what the circular itself says in paragraphs 10, 11, and 13. Paragraph 10 says:
The Board contemplate that existing facilities, including the number of teachers employed, should be generally maintained.
[Interruption.] There are very few occupations in this country that can say that. Then, in paragraph 11 we find these words:
As regards new developments, including the employment of additional teachers";
while in paragraph 13, to which my hon. Friend took some exception, the Board say:
They invite the local authorities to submit a forecast of the number of elementary teachers that they desire to employ next year.
There is no intention or desire to reduce the number, but to see how far and in what ways they can employ most. That is the intention and desire of the Department.
Let me now turn to a very important question which my hon. Friend addressed to me with regard to the capitation grant. He explained clearly a not very simple arithmetical sum. I think I understand it sufficiently well to say at once that the 36s., which it was proposed to increase, under the cut of 15 per cent., by 4s. 6d., to 40s. 6d., will be increased by 9s. I hope that is perfectly clear and definite. Then let me turn to what my
hon. Friend said as to the depopulated areas, speaking from his very wide and varied knowledge of the problem as a former member of this great profession, linked up with his executive experience. It is extremely difficult to give anything like an answer which I feel would satisfy him. All I can say is that the question is not only receiving very careful consideration now, but that very anxious and sympathetic thought and work is being applied to it, and will continue to be applied to it, so that we shall not merely consider the position in the light of the two present Budgets, but as far as may be possible, the position years ahead.
With regard to the building problem, that certainly is a matter which calls for very careful consideration, but I must call the attention of the Committee to certain figures with regard to it, bearing in mind, not only the severe financial situation, but the extreme peril of our situation. There is no doubt about that anyhow. In 1923–24 the total capital expenditure on all forms of education approved by the Board amounted to £1,900,000. By far the major portion of that expenditure was connected with buildings. In 1924–25 the figure was £4,500,000. In 1928–29, the last year of the late Conservative Government, it had gone up to £6,850,000. In 1930–31 it was £13,000,000. In stable financial conditions, when the finances of the country were on a satisfactory basis, I say at once that those figures, instead of frightening me, gave me great pleasure, but in the position we are in the late Government had no alternative other than to stop the increase of the grant and to revert to the former 20 per cent.
I agree most emphatically with the hon. Member who hoped that there would be no hysterical economy. Certainly the Board, in a circular already issued, deprecate any panic economy. I cannot imagine anything more wasteful than cutting down and throwing away money when it will certainly be wanted at no distant date. I hope that local authorities, with the approval of the Board of Education, will see that, if economies are enforced, they will be reasonable economies and not panic economies. The Board of Education is very anxious to get into the closest possible touch with the local education authorities, and with as little upset and uncertainty as may be,
and they have cordially invited local authorities to send them by the middle of November a forecast of their expenditure for the year 1932–33, a statement of the number of elementary teachers they expect to employ in that year, and a statement of the new developments that they are anxious to set on foot. I ask the Committee to bear this in mind in view of the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member and others that our education system is going to be subjected to senseless reductions of expenditure and that there will be a blind striking out in all sorts of directions which may do great damage to our education system. It would be the duty of any Government to see that economy is practised with all requisite efficiency. The estimated increase of expenditure of this Department for the year was a little over £2,000,000 over that of the last year, which was a record year. The May Committee, which rendered a very great and lasting service to the country, recommended that that increase should be reduced by £1,000,000. That is exactly what we have done.
I hope it will be borne in mind that, instead of this panic economy, what they are proposing to do with regard to the system of education itself, apart from teachers' salaries, is to allow for an increase of expenditure to the extent of £1,000,000 even in these perilous times. That is consistent with the maintenance of the highest ideals of education in such dangerous financial conditions as obtain at present. I hope that will be borne in mind when we hear, I will not say senseless criticisms, but the very ill-informed criticisms to which this Administration like all Administrations is, from time to time, subject. There is a very earnest desire on the part of the Board, and of local education authorities, to take this opportunity of consideration, conciliation, and re-organisation with regard to the whole system of future salaries, which consideration was due soon anyhow. The sooner that process starts the better. I have no authority to say so, but I hope it may be possible, with the consent of all parties concerned, to get Lord Burnham to render his assistance again, because no man understands the whole question better than he does, and we should be specially fortunate if we were able to persuade him to undertake such a duty once more. I want to pay a very
sincere and whole-hearted tribute to the very great assistance which local education authorities have rendered to me in this most difficult task which I have been compelled to undertake.

Mr. MILLS: What about new schools?

Sir D. MACLEAN: In the coming year it is estimated that no fewer than 200 new schools will probably be opened.

Mr. HARRIS: Does that mean schools already sanctioned?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Schools that are already sanctioned, of course. I cannot tell what schools received sanction before.

Mr. MILLS: That is the paint I am asking.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I can tell the bon. Member at once that it will be the policy of the Board to see, as far as it can, that new areas of population are certainly dealt with on proper and definite lines. I have had very great assistance from local education authorities. They have already shown the greatest desire to assist us, and indeed they have assisted us very materially. I have also had interviews with representative bodies of teachers, and, as far as my personal experience of them is concerned. I have found them reasonable people. I cannot say how far that attitude was carried out on the platform and in the Press. I gather that it was rather different. I am sure that when the present excitement is over we may look forward to the most cordial, effective and most useful co-operation of the teachers.
I will say a word about what, after all, is the greatest concern of the teachers, the local education authorities and the Board of Education, namely, the child. What about the child? I make an appeal to the teachers to which I am confident they will respond. The child is not only their material interest but their life interest and their ethical interest. They desire to serve the State through the child, and I am sure they are as active as ever they were. I hope that after the action of His Majesty's Government in meeting them, not only fairly but, I think, with a risk and, I would add, a generosity in view of the very difficult financial position of the country, that when the heat and dust of the conflict, which was inevitable, has
died down, we shall all join together to render the greatest service possible to the community. There has been a serious run upon the bank of citizenship. I believe that the finest gold reserve in the country is a well-educated, well-trained child. I appeal not only to the teachers but to this House and to the country that in the greatest charge that can he committed to any State we should put aside our disputes and let unity be our common objective.

9.0.p.m.

Sir CHARLES TREVELYAN: In one way the speech to which we have just listened has made my task comparatively simple. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education has used a great many kind generalities with which we can all agree, but he has not said that the economies which are in this Bill are not going to injure the education of the children from one end of England to the other. He has, it is true, offered us the consolation that 200 schools are going to be opened almost at once. In what regime were those schools built? I should like to ask him one small question about detail. I believe that Surrey was going to build five secondary schools and had got the plans and was putting them forward to his Department.

Mr. EDE: The contracts were actually accepted, but not sealed.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The contracts were accepted but not sealed; they have been stopped by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I only wonder whether the secondary schools are going to be ready a year and a half hence. All I know is that from one end of the country to the other local authorities are stopping building. All the consolation that the right hon. Gentleman gives us is that there will not be a blind striking out of educational expenditure in all directions. All local authorities are not so foolish. Economy will be practised with the requisite efficiency. Yes, he has seen to that.

Viscountess ASTOR: You have seen to it during the last two years.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The requisite efficiency is seen to because of the cuts which he requires them to make. So it will be efficiency. I feel that there is not a petty and unsubstantial difference
as to quantity between the two sides of the Committee; the difference is in our main measure of things. Here is the cut in education—one of the greatest of cuts. There has never been agreement between us as to the relative importance of education. Most of us on this side of the Committee put it first, and I am bound to say that honestly, until a couple of months ago, I thought that the Liberals put it first. We all knew that whenever there was an economy campaign that however much real, genuine interest the Tory party may have in education—and I do not deny it; everybody knows that I have never denied it—at the same time they regard national economy as more important than education. The May Report is simply a Tory report. We regard education—and I am going to state this without apology, as I believe I have the support of almost everybody on this side of tile Committee—as a necessity no more to be curtailed than bread, meat or clothing. However bad the condition of the country, the worse the condition of the country, the more we ought to make up to the poor and those who are suffering by at least seeing that their children are as well off or better off than in good times.
I am not going to pursue in an elaborate discussion the economies which make up the total of £9,000,000. The monstrous thing is that there should be these enormous economies at all. The huge total of our armaments is to be less reduced than our education expenditure. The main saving is to be on the children, on the rising generation, on the hope of the world, on the regenerating force of the world. To many of us this is not a mistaken policy; it is a monstrous wrong. A lot of old politicians and old bankers, over 60 years of age, are prepared to throttle the chances of the rising generation, because they have not the will or the pluck to tax the rich. [Interruption.] They have not the pluck to tax me or to tax you.
This attack on the education of the workers was initiated in the country by a series of discreditable statements and misrepresentations. The May Report has been adopted practically wholesale, except for the proportion of the cuts. On what is this savage reduction based? These are some of the things which the May Report says:
The standard of education, elementary and secondary, that is being given to the child of poor parents is already in very many cases superior to that with which the middle-class parent is providing for his own child.
If these grotesque generalities were even remotely true, is it a reason for breaking down the present meagre chances of working-class education because a number of the middle classers, either through snobbery or other reasons, do not give their children a proper education? The report ends up with this preposterous statement:
None of the reductions we recommend"—
all of which the Government have adopted—
involves the withdrawal of any educational facilities new being afforded.
Many millions of pounds are being withdrawn from education, and we are told that the school children are to go on living the same life as before. What nonsense! What contempt they have for the understanding of the workers ! The withdrawal of no educational facilities! What are they doing? They are abolishing the 50 per cent. minimum limit for grants. There will be £1,450,000 less for 71 authorities. Are there no less chances for the children there? Are all the mulcted authorities going to put that £1,000,000 or so on the rates? We know that they are not. London is going to get 23 per cent. of its grant docked. I wonder whether Pre Tory County Council of London are going to put that on the rates. If they are not, how are the children of London to do without that £500,000 that is involved? Some 71 authorities will lose an average of 21 per cent. of their present grant. Yet we are told that there is to be no withdrawal of educational facilities. The thing is rank humbug.
There is to be a general reduction in the growth of expenditure. There is to be a cut of £1,200,000. Most of the rest is to be absorbed in the normal increases. All new enterprise ends. Ends all nursery schools. Ends any further advance of the Hadow reorganisation. The essential school buildings for Hadow reorganisation were being carried through by the 50 per cent. grant, which is now docked again to 20 per cent. All the building projects will begin to go, as in Surrey. Hundreds
of thousands of pounds will not be spent. Mark one of the results. There will be innumerable builders, masons, plasterers and joiners out of work. All those projects which would produce 200 schools in a few months will now break down. That is the Government's policy. That is going to improve the trade of the country!
Take smaller things, but not too small to consider when we have the children in mind. This afternoon I went to see an exhibition of mechanical aids to learning. [Laughter.] Why do you laugh. Can you not take anything seriously? There are at the present time tremendous developments of such things as gramophones, cinemas, scientific exhibits for schools, making the task of the teacher easier and immeasurably more efficient. All these are things that are to be cut off. These are the new things for which all the money has been taken away. These are the very things which the teaching profession and the local authorities are beginning to understand really make a, difference in education, and these are the very things that are to be stopped and killed now.

Mr. MILLS: While other nations are using them.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: A few words about the cut in the teachers' salaries. Having made the monstrous and cruel proposition that there should be a 15 per cent. cut, and having received 250,000 post cards from the country, the Government hope to set things right by reducing the cut by 5 per cent. They talk as if it were a great concession from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. I dare say it may save uneasiness in the minds of some politicians, who will be to say: "See how I can squeeze the Government," but I very much doubt if it will reconcile the teachers, and I do not think it ought to reconcile the teachers.
I want to say a personal word. The House is always kindly when anyone speaks of his personal position. When I resigned from the Labour Government, earlier in the year, I took no opportunity, such as is invariably accorded to a retiring Minister, to explain to the House the reasons for my resignation. I wished to make no public attack on the Government then. I separated from them
because of my utter distrust of the tendencies which I saw growing in the minds of the leaders of the party and my belief that those tendencies would lead to disaster. I expected this which for us is a catastrophe, but not as sudden or as complete as it has occurred. The fact is that I trusted my colleagues who are now on this side of the House, but I saw the three leaders moving away from Labour ideals and policies, and their present performance surprises me not in its nature but in its extreme character.
If I may say so, I understand the attitude adopted by my colleagues on this side of the House who left the late Government. They were prepared to consider cuts in the various services, including education, on condition that the party approved of them. [Interruption.] And with that I am content. I am absolutely certain that there never was the remotest chance of this party doing other than oppose a 15 per cent. or a 10 per cent. or a 5 per cent. cut. But I also want to say this, that if I had remained as President of the Board of Education, nothing would have induced me to be a party to considering a 20 per cent. or a 10 percent. cut, or to make other drastic education cuts. I would never have been a party to bargaining with or bullying teachers out of what. I consider to be their rights.
What is the position of the teachers? There is a 10 per cent. cut, an enormous and disastrous reduction. I am quite certain that the teachers are prepared to accept increased taxation with the rest of the population, but we have never been told why they should be singled out—I am going to suggest the reason presently—and we want to know why they have been singled out. The first excuse is that their salaries were settled in a period of high prices and that they were settled in relation to high prices. That is definitely the reverse of the truth. The teachers were sweated before the War, an average salary of 36s. a week, and the salaries were settled irrespective of prices. Lord Burnham said:
The scales were undoubtedly fixed as standards with the knowledge that they would have the greater value with a fall in prices.
And you cut them when the fall in prices came. Further, this is what local education authorities said:
The teachers were given their option of a sliding scale of salaries, high at the moment but falling as prices fell, or a scale based upon normal prices, to continue for a period of years. They chose the latter, and thereupon the cost of living ceased to be a factor in settling these scales.
As a matter of fact, that was a good answer a fortnight ago by those of us who oppose this proposed cut, but the excuse of prices has now ceased to have any validity at all. Prices are going up. Wholesale flour is 12½ per cent. higher in price already; a period of rising prices is beginning, and the teachers are being swindled out of their rights on a false issue. The latest legislation of the Government disposes of the foolish and thin excuse under which it is made. I want the Committee to appreciate—I do not think the President of the Board of Education appreciates at the moment—another effect of what we are doing. The teachers owe their present salaries to a bargain and a settlement which is not made with the State. They are employed by local education authorities, and their contracts are made with them. The Burnham Committee has settled their salaries, and by the Burnham Committee they ought to be altered, if altered at all. To all intents and purposes, if these cuts are carried through that method of agreement is disposed of for good and all. It is no use saying that they shall settle details but not the principle. What is the use of collective bargaining if a superior power comes in and overrides the bargain on the most important point. Collective bargaining cannot go on under those conditions; and note the result. I am not discussing whether the local authority system or a national system is the best, but we should know where we are going. The teachers now must look to Parliament, and Parliament alone, for a redress of their grievances. The teachers are invited to enter politics in order to maintain their standard of life.
I know there are many hon. Members who want to speak, and I do not want to make a long speech. Let me say one word in conclusion. Our unrelenting opposition to these cuts is not only for the sake of the teachers themselves, but because it is a cruel, foolish, and wrong national policy. The teachers
are attacked first and chiefly because a large economy can be made out of them; they are the most vulnerable, but no one thinks that they are the only victims. Their reduction is only the signal for industrial reductions that are to come. It is all part of a lower standards campaign. To the better-paid workers in the next few months it is going to be said: "See the Judges, Cabinet Ministers, His Majesty himself, and well-paid people like the teachers, have made their sacrifice, now, you engineers and railwaymen, go and do likewise. "And to the worst-paid workers it is going to be said: "Even the unemployed, poor devils, they have done their bit "—or they have been done out of their bit—"you cannot be worse off than they are; come along and show your patriotism."
It is the whole policy which we indict. From 1922 onwards, through the coal stoppage and all these years, there has been the unceasing refrain that with lower wages prosperity will come. We do not believe it. We believe it is a lie to say that you can make a nation prosperous by making the people poor. I support the Labour party in the conviction that it will reverse these cuts. Whatever the conditions of trade and prosperity or the reverse, when this party next gets power, as everyone knows it will take whatever measure you like—take 10 years if you want to—but whenever it takes power it will reverse these cuts. I invite this party to show to this policy unrelenting opposition followed by unqualified reversal.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Sir C. Trevelyan) has rightly said that the House always listens with attention and kindliness to a personal statement, but such a personal statement, according to the custom of this House, must, at any rate, attempt to be fair. I admit that I could not account for the speeches made both by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) about teachers' salaries. I understand that they are both prepared to die in the last ditch rather than to see any reduction of teachers' salaries. That is what I gathered from their remarks. Well, that is very curious.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Except by normal processes. The State is here stepping in to do the work of the committee which, as in any great industry, settles the wages between the two sides.

Lord E. PERCY: In other words, the right hon. Gentleman would not have taken action either way, cutting down or improving salaries, and therefore, when he says with a flourish of trumpets that if he had stayed in office he would have been no party to a cut, he means that he would have acquiesced in a cut if settled by the Burnham Committee. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Committee will cast their minds back a few years, because this is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has pursued this heroic policy for the protection of teachers' salaries. He did the same thing in 1924, and allowed the Burnham Committee to reach a complete deadlock. When I came into office, some settlement had to be found, and, fortunately, an arbitration award was agreed to. But let hon. Members remember that this year the local authorities went to the right hon. Gentleman opposite and said that they had come to the conclusion that for a proper scientific settlement of teachers' salaries on a new agreement, a committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman in some form or other to prepare the way for the Burnham Committee was a necessity. The right hon. Gentleman did nothing, and his successor, the hon. Member for Caerphilly did nothing. The right hon. Gentleman says there would have been no cut of 10 per cent. in salaries. Well, notice had been given, for the local authorities had demanded a, reduction in teachers' salaries. Everyone knows they were demanding a reduction of 12½per cent. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Caerphilly take his courage in both hands and inform the local authorities that he thought that was quite a wrong demand? No. He and his associates sat back, and let things drift.
Moreover, the hon. Member for Caerphilly actually complained of the May Committee for having expressed an opinion as to what the level of teachers' salaries ought to be, apart from the financial crisis. If he is going to criticise the May Committee for that, will he kindly tell us why the President of the Board of Education—I have forgotten whether it was the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle or his successor—informed the Burnham Committee officially that any conclusion at which they might arrive would be subject to the conclusions of the May Committee? This cataract of humbug ought now to cease. As everyone knows, the whole question of the structure of teachers' salaries requires to be considered in a very much more scientific way than is possible by bargaining across the table.
This appeal to the Burnham Committee as if they were the be-all and end-all of collective bargaining is nonsense. You have to prepare the way, and the Board of Education under the right hon. Gentleman has never been prepared to do it. If he could get out of the responsibility of having anything to do with teachers' salaries, that was what he wanted. The result is he had a deadlock in 1924, and he produced a deadlock in 1931, and then he stands up with complete unconsciosuness of sin, as though he was the only white-headed boy who ever loved a teacher. That scientific inquiry will have to be undertaken, and the May Committee were perfectly right, and the local authorities and the National Union of Teachers know they were perfectly right, in saying that the Board of Education must take a greater part in the settlement of teachers' salaries. Of course they were. Does the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle really mean that the State, which has to pay more than half the teachers' salaries, should have no say whatever in what those salaries are to be? No constitutional theorist, or anybody who devotes one hour's attention to this problem, will take such an absurd view. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly determined to have no constructive or progressive views about education at all.
I should like to make one other remark about the question of teachers' salaries. We have had two speeches on this subject from the opposite side which were not claimed to be made on behalf of the National Union of Teachers. I am sure they were not. I have received, as hon. Members may suppose, not merely postcards from my constituency, but long letters from all parts of the country from every class of teacher. Most of them are extremely good-tempered, and the most
remarkable thing about them is that over and over again the statement is made that if the Government had asked them for 10 per cent. they would have given it gladly. I know, of course, it is not quite the same thing to have had a cut of 15 per cent. first and then have it reduced to 10 per cent., but, after all, teachers realise perfectly what are the conditions under which the Government have to act in these circumstances. I feel confident that we shall have from the National Union of Teachers a statement of their real position very different and much more generous and patriotic than has come either from the hon. Member for Caerphilly or from the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle.
All this riotous rant on the subject of the cutting down of education! The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that the only sound condition of education is that the country should spend the greatest possible amount of money on it, and that any proposal for economy in any direction must be greeted with shouts about taking the bread out of the children's mouth, or some equally rational expression. I do not think the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) will quite thank the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle for his rather strange explanation of why the right hon. Member for Keighley remained on the Front Bench in the last Government. The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle says, "What about the five central secondary schools in Southwark?" Does he realise that one effect of his policy at the Board was to reduce the rate of increase of secondary schools in this country?

Mr. EDE: But not in Surrey.

Lord E. PERCY: After all, what has been the growth of educational expenditure in recent years? Between 1924 and 1929, roughly speaking, the Board's expenditure went up by 2 per cent. Hon. Members opposite, in spite of what they said at the last election, now say that those years were years of restriction of educational expansion. They know, however, that there was a considerable amount and a very rapid rate of educational expansion in all these directions. In the last two years the expenditure of the Board has gone up by 15 per cent. That increase of expenditure is not accounted for by building programmes, it
is not accounted for by reorganisation, it is not accounted for by any of those things about which the right hon. Gentleman was talking. He does not know to what it is due, nor does any other hon. Member of this Committee, because we have never had an account given of it. But we do know that the money has been going away in various directions. In the last five or six years there has been a steady increase in pure administration by the local authorities. There has been a leakage in all directions. You have not been keeping in your hands the very funds that were necessary for that development, which was your main point.
Now as to this cutting down and its effect on Hadow reorganisation: If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle would examine some of the programmes of local authorities for the years 1930 to 1933, he would find the very astonishing fact that this great growth of prospective expenditure is not due to reorganisation—I am quoting figures from memory, but they are approximately correct—and that out of an increase of £30,000 to £32,000 in the two years foreseen by the Leicestershire County Council in its programme for teachers salaries, about £21,000 was due to the prospective raising of the school-leaving age, about £9,000 to schools in areas of new populations, and only between £2,000 and £3,000 to reorganisation of the schools. Of course other counties have been making a positive saving on the reorganisation of their schools, though that is rather rare. You can go on with your main work of reorganisation perfectly well under a system of economy, and every one, every local administrator, knows it. You may slow down the rate of increase, I grant, but to say that apart from raising the school-leaving age these cuts mean the holding up of educational progress in that way, is perfectly absurd. I would remind hon. Members opposite that this policy of central schools which they advocate so warmly now is the policy which in the year 1925 they were fighting against tooth and nail up and down the country, and that I had to carry through a policy of central schools in the teeth of that opposition.

Mrs. MANNING: We still are opposed.

Lord E. PERCY: I see. They are still against a policy of central schools and Hadow reorganisation.

Mr. McSHANE: No. They are different things.

Lord E. PERCY: They are still opposed to the policy of central schools, and they oppose these cuts because they think that the cuts will stop reorganisation. An hon. Member suggests that they are not the same thing. My final word is this: I apologise to the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Manning) if I misunderstood her and got into a heated controversy with her. I do not want to be heated, but I do want Members of the Committee to realise that education is inevitably and in its essence a constantly expanding service. You cannot stop educational expansion, because the material for teaching is constantly changing. How have other schools which cannot draw on the taxpayer year after year and century after century met that position? They have met it out of a fixed income, from endowments and fees, slightly above their current needs. They have met it out of money which they have been able to accumulate, with which they have from time to time provided new laboratories and so on.
That is the only principle upon which you will ever be able to carry on continuous educational expansion. You may have spurts for three or four years, and then have economy and shut down, but the only way by which education can continually expand, irrespective of these changes and chances of the financial situation, is to have a steady income from the rates and taxes and from fees, so far as fees are paid in secondary schools—to have an income slightly above your needs and to accumulate that income by careful economy in order that you may be able continuously to expand. This idea that education committees must always be putting more and more demands on the rates is the very death of any consistent and steady educational growth. I believe these economies do point to the possibility of a new system of educational finance which will really ensure consistent and continuous progress, and I have no hesitation and qualms whatever in giving the Government my warmest support.

Mrs. MANNING: I have listened with what patience I could to the cataract of humbug which the Noble Lord has poured upon us, as always, from the Olympian heights where he appears to dwell. I want to state quite categorically that the National Union of Teachers has never at any time stated that it did not believe the State had any right to take part in the question of salaries. What we have objected to, as the Noble Lord knows quite well, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Sir C. Trevelyan) knew quite well when he was Minister of Education, is that there should be some office committee which can decide, without consultation with us at all, what should be the scientific methods by which our scales of salaries should be worked out. The national negotiating committee, the Burnham Committee, which the Noble Lord now calls obsolete and upon which he poured so much scorn—

Lord E. PERCY: I did not call it obsolete.

Mrs. MANNING: The Noble Lord said it was an obsolete negotiating machine. But it is something which the teachers treasure, something which we shall not lightly give up, something which we hope will operate again, because we believe that the interference of the State, as we have had to suffer it at this time, between the employers and employed in the great service of teaching, is something which no profession like ours can accept without degradation to itself. If the State wishes to interfere by the method of a round table conference with us on the question of salaries we shall be only too glad to enter into such negotiations with the State, but we are not prepared to accept the type of interference which we know only too well the Noble Lord would desire. I am sorry, however, that I have been tempted, by the strictures of the Noble Lord, to digress from the subject with which I wish mainly to deal. The Noble Lord always has an irritating effect upon me, and in that respect I think I am not alone in this Committee. To-night I am anxious to deal mainly with the cuts in the education services, apart from the cuts in the teachers' salaries.
I do not think there is any Member in the Committee who does not under-
stand now all that is involved in the salaries cut, and I should be labouring the point if I dwelt at any length upon it. What I am anxious to make the Committee understand is that the description of "a cataract of humbug" is justified when anybody states that the cuts which are now proposed will not have a drastic effect upon the education services of the country. I do not say this in any sentimental spirit, but I have listened to hundreds of Debates on education in the House of Commons and I have taken part in a few of them, and the thing which impresses me has always been that appalling remoteness from the realities of the school and of the lives of the children of this country exhibited by hon. Members opposite.

Viscountess ASTOR: Opposite?

Mrs. MANNING: Yes, hon. Members opposite, including the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). In this Chamber economies in education are represented by rows of figures, by grants and formulas. They are represented in the minds of Members by the age groups described by the Noble Lord, and by the "bulge." If ever there was a detestable word applied to boys and girls passing through school it is that word "bulge." It is one of the Noble Lord's Olympian phrases. To me these education cuts and these discussions on education bring up a very different picture. As one who has had the honour to be engaged for many years in the greatest service in the State, when I talk about education and when I regard education estimates and education cuts, I see hundreds of thousands of the boys and girls of our nation, eager, lovable, earnest, crowding into the schools. I see the men and women who give devoted service in those schools. I see the men and women, some of them obscure and humble people and others whose names are well-known at the Board of Education and in the House of Commons, who have given years of voluntary service on local education committees. And I see now the May Committee, like a bull in a china shop, upsetting the delicate mechanism of grants and formulas in connection with our education system.
The Noble Lord probably does not think that that mechanism is sound, and I quite agree, but it is a delicate mechanism and it cannot be upset and broken up in a moment, without having something to put in its place. The May Committee has planted its feet right into that delicate mechanism of the grants of the Board of Education for education services. As regards those services, and the men and women who administer them, and the children in the schools, irretrievable havoc will be wrought if this is allowed to go on, and consternation will be caused to those who have to do the work of education. That is why I appeal to the President of the Board of Education, whose philosophy of education I know is very different from that of the Noble Lord. Unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman Nemesis has overtaken the present President of the Board of Education. From this bench he proposed the formation of an economy committee. Now he is destroying the one thing in which he believes.
I wish to translate some of the economies outlined in the White Paper in connection with the local education authorities, into terms of the real sacrifices involved in the schools of our country. That is the only way in which hon. Members can understand what is involved in these proposals. They must regard these economies, not as rows of figures but in terms of the sacrifices which will have to be made in the schools and by the local education authorities. I share in principle the feeling with regard to the deficiency grant which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). I shall not see its departure with any tears but I say that to bring such a blow upon the local education authorities so swiftly, without giving them any chance of recouping themselves, is a scandalous injustice to those authorities.
I wonder if the Minister himself understands exactly what this proposal means to the deficiency grant areas. I believe there are many Members here who do not understand its effects and I am certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not understand them fully. The deficiency grant is paid in respect of those areas where the formula will not bring in the 50 per cent. of approved
expenditure which the Section of the Act gives them by right. When we look at the proposal in the White Paper it does not seem to be such a big cut. It is a cut of £1,450,000 on a total expenditure of £66,290,000 but that is an expenditure from which salaries and costs of pensions have to be subtracted and when these are subtracted we find that this is a reduction on £21,270,000 or a reduction of about 7 per cent.

Viscountess ASTOR: Which all of you agreed to.

Mrs. MANNING: I am very sorry that the Noble Lady should continue to interrupt.

Viscountess ASTOR: I have not been interrupting.

Mrs. MANNING: What I want to tell the Noble Lady quite fairly and courteously—I would extend to her a courtesy which is very often not extended to me in this House—is that if the whole of our Front Bench had been found sitting on that side, she and her friends opposite would still have found a firm, united, and determined opposition from the party to which I belong. That reduction in the deficiency grant is a reduction which is confined to 71 areas only. Those 71 areas unfortunately will have to suffer a reduction of grant, as my right hon. Friend has said, of something in the region of 21 per cent. In London it is 23 per cent., and in some other areas it is an even bigger percentage of loss that they will have to suffer. If one could retain one's sense of humour at a time like this, one might gain a little amusement from the reflection that out of those 71 areas, at least 75 Parliamentary representatives on the opposite benches are in this House, and they are nearly all Tory areas; only 16 of them are represented by Labour Members.
I notice that the Noble Lord went to speak at Hastings the other night. I wonder if he explained to them how the loss of the deficiency grant will act on the rates of Hastings? Then there are the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Brighton and Hove (Major Tryon), and others. I wonder if they have told their constituents how the loss of this deficiency grant is going to raise their rates by 4d., 5d. and 6d.? But being Tory areas, being Tory local
education authorities, I do not think the rates will go up very much. Most of the Tories keep the rates down—at any cost. Let me tell the right hon. and hon. Members opposite how one Tory borough proposes to keep the rates down because they have lost a deficiency plant of £16,587. These suggestions were put forward, not by the chairman of the education committee, but by the chairman of the finance committee. This loss of deficiency grant will be in excess of a fourpenny rate.
These are the suggestions which we must consider: Giving up evening play centres"—
I hope the Noble Lady will note that—
keeping myopic children in the ordinary schools instead of sending them to a special school for myopic children, appointing no new teachers"—
I hope the Minister will take note of that—
reducing the present staff.
My hon. Friend raised the whole question of unemployment. It is not what the Board of Education will save, but what will actually take place in the areas—
reducing the present staff, reducing the cost of medical services"—

Viscountess ASTOR: I do not believe in medicine myself.

Mrs. MANNING: It goes on:
economising on books, apparatus, and equipment, reducing expenditure on mentally defective children.
There is a dose of medicine for the Noble Lady! It is a cataract of humbug when Noble Lords and Noble Ladies and hon. and right hon. Members say that this will not affect the education services of our country. What tosh! It is reducing the very life-blood of the services, and they have not cared what part is to be cut.

Viscountess ASTOR: That is not true.

10.0 p.m.

Mrs. MANNING: They have not cared what part of the education services has to be cut, and that is the result of the economies suggested by the May Report and the economies adopted by the Government, which they are now going to force on 71 areas in this country. I shall take every opportunity to make it known in those Tory areas, that hon. and right hon. Members opposite approve of these
economies, which will either raise their rates to an extraordinary height or force them to ruin the educational services. The other grant, as has already been explained to-night, is a grant which will reduce the education facilities in the year 1932. I mainly want to point to the loss of 50 per cent. on building grant. That was a grant offered by the late Labour Government to the local education authorities, in order to help those authorities to realise the ideals of the Noble Lord. I agree with the Hadow Report, as the Noble Lord very well knows, which is an entirely different thing from the central schools. [Interruption.] Well, now, be sensible! I want to make this point of explanation to the Noble Lord. I lament that he should have confused Hadowism, as he realises it in the Hadow Report, with the central schools, which were opposed by the National Union of Teachers. He knows very well that it is a totally different thing.

Lord E. PERCY: I said nothing about the National Union of Teachers. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did!"] I did not. I said that the whole central school idea was opposed by the Labour party, which would not have anything but secondary schools. I was not talking about the National Union of Teachers. They are much more sensible than the Labour party!

Mrs. MANNING: Whether it was the Labour party or the National Union of Teachers does not vitiate my argument to the Noble Lord, which is that the central schools, opposed both by the National Union of Teachers and by the Labour party, were a totally different thing from the ideals outlined in the Hadow Report. [Interruption.] I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is itching to get up, so we will finish this argument outside. The philosophy of the Noble Lord is in absolute contradiction to the philosophy of the Minister—at least, the philosophy of the Minister when he sat on this side of the House. I hope that he has not the same chameleon-like texture of many other Liberals in the House. I hope that since he has crossed the Floor he has not also suffered a sea-change in regard to his philosophy on education. The Noble Lord believes that when the rate of accumulation of capital in
this country is slowing down, we must not, indulge in such long-term investments as education. The philosophy of the Minister, expressed less than two years ago in this House, was that undoubtedly the best interest of the nation is the well-being of its childhood, not, looking four or five years ahead, but taking the long view of the effective existence of the nation itself.
I hope that that is the view which the Minister, in spite of the great difficulties he must encounter, will persist in pushing among other Members on the Front Bench. I believe implicitly that the betrayal of the children of this country is the betrayal of the nation itself; that the little children are being made to pay twice, as they must pay twice, for they are to he starved in their bodies because of the poverty of their parents and the abominable cut in unemployment pay, and now you are to make them pay a second time by starving their minds. Ever since 1918 you have sacrificed the children and put them in the front firing line, and the people who do it call themselves the patriotic party.

Mr. COWAN: I wish to put the case as briefly, temperately and as fairly as I can for a large body of teachers whose interests have hardly been mentioned. I refer to the Scottish teachers. I wish to put some questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who may not have an opportunity to-night of replying, but who may take some other means of giving a reply. The economy cuts in teachers' salaries take effect in Scotland as in England. When the original proposal of 15 per cent. was made, there was natural feeling of resentment against unfair treatment, but since the amended cut of 10 per cent. has been introduced, the teachers have felt, not any sense of gratitude, but a certain feeling of relief; and the charge of unfairness no longer stands in so far as they have now been placed on the same footing as other services. Those who are connected with the teaching services in Scotland are proud that, while the teachers felt a sense of grievance and unfair treatment, they conducted themselves in speech and language with dignity and restraint. That has been freely admitted by the Press, the education authorities and the Education Department itself.
The methods of salary payments in England and Scotland differ very widely. The application of the 10 per cent, reduction may be made quite simply in England because they have only four standard scales; whereas in Scotland they have a, multiplicity of scales. There is a minimum national scale to which authorities can add such sums as they please. The possibility is that in making the reduction, great unfairness may be perpetrated quite unwittingly by the local authorities. It, has therefore been suggested that if this cut is to operate fairly, there should be some standardisation of salaries at some particular date. Salaries just now are made up of two parts—the obligatory minimum national scale and the addition made thereto by the authorities. There has been a tendency of late to cut some of these salaries.
Some have already been cut, and after this percentage reduction has been made owing to the economy campaign, it will still be open to the authorities to indulge in further cuts. It may be said, and I believe it to be true, that the majority of authorities will recognise their obligation to the teachers and will seek to cut fairly. But there are other authorities of whom so much cannot be said. We have had indicated already that some authorities, under the shelter of this economy campaign, are cutting the teachers much more than can be considered fair. So far as we can, we shall prevent that. Therefore, I should like the Secretary of State for Scotland to give a specific answer to this question. Is it not possible under the Order-in-Council which is proposed in this Bill, that salaries should be standardised as at 1st January of this year and that only the percentage reduction allowed by the Government should apply to these salaries, because, if the authorities go beyond this reduction and add to it by the powers conferred upon them under the Act of 1918, there will be in Scotland not only a feeling of injustice and unfair treatment, and of different treatment as between one locality and another, hut a feeling of unrest and uncertainty, which must destroy in a large measure the work of the schools.
A second question is how these reductions are to be effected in Scotland, whether by Order-in-Council or by the
operation of Section 6 of the Act of 1918. The Secretary of State might be good enough to tell us which method he prefers, and why he prefers it. I do not think it would be fair to enter upon any long arguments in favour of one course or another, but I ask the Secretary of State to be very careful when carrying out his plans that he does not increase injustice and so do harm to what he believes to be a great service.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I rise towards the end of one of the most, interesting Debates we have had on education to encourage the Secretary of State to explain to the Committee and people of Scotland how these drastic economies will affect education in Scotland, because its administration is under two different Departments, and the laws of Scotland concerning education administration differ vastly from those of England. Even so far as teachers' salaries are concerned, the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) made plain the great distinction there is between the two countries. One point which I wish to emphasise was not mentioned by him. Unjust as the treatment of teachers may be in England, the proposals are grossly unjust in their application to Scottish teachers, because during the last two or three months there has been a cut of approximately 10 per cent. in the salaries of between 35 and 40 per cent, of the teachers in Scotland, and if the new cut of 1U per cent. is applied to them, it will mean a reduction of 20 per cent. in their cases.
But I do not want to emphasise too much the question of teachers' salaries, for the simple reason that already it seems to have obliterated the general question of educational efficiency, particularly in Scotland. The people of Scotland are entitled to know the exact amount of the economics to be effected—not economies, but reductions in necessary education expenditure. I think I can give the figures roughly. I assume that the reduction in grants for Scotland as a result, of the reduction in teachers' salaries England will be approximately £600,000. I assume that in the other expenditure on which you are going to economise, Scotland's share will be approximately £172,000. The economy on secondary education—though that is a tragic word to
use in so far as secondary education is concerned—will amount in England to about £720,000, so that our share of this alleged economy will be about £100,000. As regards the abolition of the 50 per cent. minimum grant., Scotland's share will be approximately £199,000. If my arithmetic is right—and it may be wrong, because, as I have told the House, I had to leave school at 13, seeing that they would not let me leave at 12—Scotland's share of the reduction in expenditure on education will be approximately £1,050,000.
How will this affect education generally in Scotland? We cannot give effect to some of the proposals made in the May Report unless we not merely change the methods but completely change the law of Scotland regarding the provision of secondary education for each child. Under Section 6 (1, a) of the Act of 1918 the local authorities are required to prepare
a scheme for the adequate provision throughout the education area of the authority of all forms of primary, intermediate and secondary education.
At present every boy and girl in Scotland able to benefit by secondary education must be provided with that education free of charge. Am I to understand that those who cheered what was admitted in the Scottish Press to be the most revolutionary speech in the interests of education delivered by my right hon. Friend when he was submitting the Education Estimates on the last occasion are now prepared to see a Minister from the Liberal party—and from the Highlands of Scotland too—give up our right of free secondary education for the children of Scotland? If they are not, then it means that they are bound to take these additional alleged economies from the backs of the taxpayers and place them on the backs of the ratepayers. Might I suggest to the Scottish Education Department that they might follow the procedure which has been adopted in England, and issue a circular to the local education authorities in Scotland asking them not to go in for panic economies? I think it is far more necessary to urge the local education authorities in scotland to apply the powers which they already possess; in fact, I think it is necessary to compel some of the more
reactionary local education authorities to provide adequate and decent accommodation for the children.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not think it is hardly fair to the Scottish county councils for the hon. Member to make charges of that kind, when there will be no opportunity for hon. Members to answer them.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am prepared to repeat those charges, and I am also prepared to give the names of the schools if necessary which have already been described in reports as being unfit for habitation so far as the education of the children are concerned. I shall be prepared to meet the Noble Lady the Member for Perthshire (Duchess of Atholl) or anyone else and defend the charges which I have made. I will not proceed any further with that argument, because I wish to give the Secretary of State for Scotland time to reply to the Debate. I know that the county council of Fifeshire has adopted a policy in regard to education as niggardly almost as Perthshire. [Interruption.]

Duchess of ATHOLL: On a point of Order. I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Member is entitled to apply such terms to local authorities?

The CHAIRMAN: I did not hear any expression which was out of order.

Mr. WESTWOOD: What is now proposed means economies at the expense of the education of the children, degrading education, starving our children, neglecting to provide the accommodation required for education purposes, and in many cases refusing to supply free books. By the adoption of these proposals we are sacrificing many of the things which we have spent a lifetime in securing for education, and this is being done by a combination of Liberals and Tories who are supporting proposals to reduce the standard of education.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I listened with interest, but I must confess with impatience, to the speech of the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood), and I think it is perhaps a little unfair to suggest that I was reluctant to come to this Box and reply. On the contrary, I was anxious to have an extra minute or two. In the time at my disposal I cannot reply
to all the controversial points which have been raised, much as I should have liked to do so; I can only give to the House, and through the House to the country, as quickly as I can, some of the main facts of the Government's proposals so far as they relate to education in Scotland, taking the hon. Member's points mainly—I cannot deal with them all—as being those in which the Members of the Opposition are interested.
In the first place, I am certainly grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity of giving to my Scottish colleagues the assurance that there is no question of interfering with free secondary education. Then the hon. Member asked me about the actual amount of the economies. The amount of the economies is £350,000 in the remaining part of this year, and £800,000 in a full year—not quite so bad as he anticipates. But, as the House knows, and as my Scottish colleagues, at any rate, know, the system of grants in Scotland is different from that in England. In England, percentage grants are paid on the expenditure of the different services, but in Scotland there is a block grant, paid according, first, to the number of pupils, and, secondly, according to the number of teachers; and from the total sum of that grant is subtracted the yield of a 5d. rate.
The actual differences made by our proposals are as follows. Whereas the sum payable in respect of each scholar or student is now £4 15s. 6d., it will be, under our proposals, £4 11s.; and the sum paid in respect of each teacher will he reduced from £123 15s. to £117 15s. The rough effect of these proposals on the block grant to be received by each education authority is that, whereas under the original 15 per cent. proposal the block grant would have been reduced by one-sixth, under the present proposal it will be reduced by one-ninth. We have managed, by the good will which has been shown, in a really statesmanlike spirit, by the local authorities—a good will which has been won, as my bon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) said, by the dignity and restraint with which the Scottish teachers have conducted their side of this controversy—we have managed, by the good will and statesmanship shown on both sides, to reduce the amount by which the national minimum scale will be lowered to one-twelfth.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities referred to the case of those teachers who are above the national minimum scale. We propose to appeal to the local authorities, and we are, as my hon. Friend suggested, issuing a circular to them. I cannot give its terms in the time at my disposal, but it draws the attention of the local authorities to the importance of these teachers' claims, and also to the claims of that other class of people to which both hon. Members drew attention, who have recently been subjected to cuts; and the most important cases we have received, I do not quite say assurances, but information, that the cases of these teachers shall be dealt with in a broad-

minded way by the local authorities-concerned. On the general question of education, in this statement we remind authorities that at this critical time it is not proposed to withdraw any feature of the educational provisions contained in the Statute, but that the Government contemplate that the existing facilities should be generally maintained; and when this time of trial and stress and emergency has been passed through, we on these benches contemplate the resumption of the advance in education which has always been a primary object of our policy.

Question put, "That the word "Education" stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 240.

Division No. 494.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chapman, Sir S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Christie, J. A.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Albery, Irving James
Church, Major A. G.
Gillett, George M.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gower, Sir Robert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Granville, E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Colman, N. C. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Astor, Viscountess
Colville, Major D. J.
Gray, Milner


Atholl, Duchess of
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Atkinson, C.
Cooper, A. Duff
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddiesbro W.)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Balniel, Lord
Cranborne, Viscount
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Berry, Sir George
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hammersley, S. S.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hanbury, C.


Birkett, W. Norman
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Blindell, James
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Harbord, A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hartington, Marquess of


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,YeovIl)
Haslam, Henry C.


Boyce, Leslie
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)


Bracken, B.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Dixey, A. C.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hore-Beiisha, Leslie


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Buchan, John
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurd, Percy A.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Elmley, Viscount
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Butler, R. A.
England, Colonel A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Butt, Sir Alfred
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Iveagh, Countess of


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Falie, Sir Bertram G.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Campbell, E. T.
Ferguson, Sir John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Carver, Major W. H.
Fielden E. B.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Foot, Isaac
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)
ForestierWalker, Sir L.
Knight, Holford


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon, George R.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm..W.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Leighton, Major B. E. P
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Smithers, Waldron


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Penny, Sir George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Somerset, Thomas


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Locker-Lampsen, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
 Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
 Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Purbrick, M.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Lymington, Viscount
Pybus, Percy John
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Main)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ramsbotham, H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. P.


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rold, David D. (County Down)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Remer, John R.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Thompson, Luke


Macquisten, F. A.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Thomson, Sir F.


Mailland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Train, J.


Marjoribanks, Edward
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Markham, S. F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Ross, Ronald D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Rothschild, J. de
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Millar, J. D.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Salmon, Major I.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
White, H. G.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Muirhead, A. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Savery, S. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nathan, Major H. L.
Scott, James
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Womersley, W. J.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Simms, Major-General J.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


O'Connor, T. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)



Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Skelton, A. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr. Glassey.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Chater, Daniel
Hell, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)


Adamson, W, M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clarke, J. S.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cluse, W. S.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Alpass, J. H.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)


Ammon, Charles George
Compton, Joseph
Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)


Angell, Sir Norman
Cove, William G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Arnott, John
Ciipps, Sir Stafford
Haycock, A. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Daggar, George
Hayday, Arthur


Ayles, Walter
Dallas, George
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Henderson, W. W, (Middx., Enfield)


Barnes, Alfred John
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Herriotts, J.


Barr, James
Day, Harry
Hicks, Ernest George


Batey, Joseph
Dukes, C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Duncan, Charles
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Dunnico, H.
Hoffman, P. C.


Benson, G.
Ede, James Chuter
Hollins, A.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Edmunds, J. E.
Hopkin, Daniel


Bowen, J. W.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Horrabin, J. F


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Egan, W. H.
Hudson, James H, (Huddersfield)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Isaacs, George


Brockway, A. Fenner
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Jenkins, Sir William


Bromfield, William
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bromley, J,
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Brooke, W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brothers, M.
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Gill, T. H.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gossling, A. G.
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gould, F.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Buchanan, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm (Edln., Cent.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Burgess, F. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Kinley, J.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorkt. W. R. Elland)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Cameron, A. G,
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Cape, Thomas
Groves, Thomas E.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lawrence, Susan




Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Naylor, T. E.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lawson, John James
Noel Baker, P. J.
Sorensen, R.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Leach, W.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Stephen, Campbell


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Palin, John Henry.
Strauss, G. R.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Paling, Wilfrid
Sullivan, J.


Leonard, W.
Palmer, E. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Perry, S. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Logan, David Gilbert
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Longbottom, A. W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Thurtle, Ernest


Longden, F.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Tillett, Ben


Lunn, William
Pole, Major D. G,
Tinker, John Joseph


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Potts, John S.
Tout, W. J.


McElwee, A.
Price, M. P.
Townend, A. E.


McEntee, V. L.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


McKinlay, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Turner, Sir Ben


MacLaren, Andrew
Raynes, W. R.
Vaughan, David


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Richards, R.
Viant, s. P.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walkden, A. G.


McShane, John James
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Walker, J.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wallace, H. W.


Manning, E. L.
Ritson, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Mansfield, W.
Romeril, H. G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


March, S.
Rowson, Guy
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Marcus, M,
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Wellock, Wilfred


Marley, J.
Sanders, W. S.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Marshall, Fred
Sandham, E.
West, F. R.


Mathers, George
Scrymgeour, E.
Westwood, Joseph


Maxton, James
Scurr, John
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)


Messer, Fred
Sexton, Sir James
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Middleton, G.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Mills, J. E.
Sherwood, G. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Milner, Major J.
Shield, George William
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Montague, Frederick
Shillaker, J. F.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shinwell, E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Morley, Ralph
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinkinson, George
Wise, E. F.


Mort, D. L.
Sitch, Charles H.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Muff, G.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)



Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon.H.B.(Keighley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Murnin, Hugh
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put and agreed to.—[Sir B. Eyres Monsell.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

DISTURBANCES, LIVERPOOL.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 9th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. HAYES: I desire to raise a matter in a spirit of helpfulness, I hope, to the Home Secretary and the local authorities who are charged with the preservation of order, peace and tranquility. The matter in question arose out of the conflict that took place in Liverpool yesterday between, very large numbers of workless people and the police. I raise it in
the sense that these demonstrations are taking place in all the industrial areas of the country, and I think that, as we are embarking upon a period of considerable hardship for the unemployed, at a time of the year when the season itself will add to their difficulties, it is as well, if there is to be a, public policy upon the manner in which the unemployed are to comport themselves, that we should have that policy freely and frankly declared on all sides, so that there should be no misunderstanding.
If I raise the Liverpool question in particular I hope that it will not be misunderstood. I recognise that the Home Secretary does not carry any direct personal responsibility for police activity in any particular area, but it is because he carries a general responsibility for the police administration of the country that I quote the Liverpool incident of yesterday as a very severe example. There was a very big procession, consisting mainly of workless men and a number of their womenfolk and a number of children, to the extent, I should
imagine, from the reports that I have received, of something like 8,000 to 10,000 people. I do not propose to deal with the details of what happened, because, obviously, I cannot speak as a witness of the affair as I was attending to my duties here, but from the information which percolates through the Press, and also from friends in Liverpool, I think I can state the general facts which are beyond dispute. I will quote from a report which appeared in a local and important morning newspaper, the "Liverpool Post," which gives a very fair report, I imagine, of what transpired; and if I quote from it I shall not be charged with overstating the case. It says:
The procession, headed by a drum and fife band "—
that is no offence up to now—
marched through the crowded streets carrying banners and distributing literature. When they approached the municipal offices mounted police and 100 foot police suddenly approached the procession. This move was greeted with angry cries, and for a few minutes was in disorder. There were many scuffles before the police broke the ranks into two, diverting one away from the municipal offices and turning the other one back. Eventually the demonstrators returned to their open-air headquarters by Islington Square, where they were dispersed by the police.
That really states how the atmosphere which was charged with trouble was preceded by a demonstration. It is a simple story. The unemployed on Merseyside, like the unemployed in almost any other industrial area, are organised, and all movements produce their leaders. It is no argument to point out that a particular leader is this or that type of person or that this or that person has a record. The simple fact remains that the unemployed are organised; and they appointed a deputation to wait upon the public assistance committee. It was representative in a sense of the vast army of unemployed on the Mersey side, the numbers of which can easily be imagined when it is remembered that the population there is 1,250,000. The deputation appeared before the public assistance committee a week ago, and yesterday waited upon them for a reply to their representations. By the time the deputation arrived the public assistance committee had dispersed, for reasons best known to themselves, probably in the
interests of law and order, and had left their reply with the town clerk.
The unemployed had proceeded by way of procession towards the municipal buildings, which are situate in the main public thoroughfare. They were not allowed to remain outside the public buildings and, therefore, passed on while the deputation went inside. When the deputation returned with the reply they found that the procession had disappeared, but in course of time it wended its way back towards the municipal offices and approached the deputation, which had left the municipal offices. I wish to emphasise this point, that up to that point there is no suggestion from any quarter that the procession was an improper one. The deputation had been properly introduced to the town clerk by one of the local city councillors and a local Justice of the Peace. They had been brought back to meet their procession, and up to then there had been no suggestion or any warning notice issued at any time by the police or the Watch Committee or the Lord Mayor that this procession was in any way to be interfered with, or was not to be allowed to exercise its full rights to use the King's highway. But when the deputation met the procession, and the reply of the public assistance committee, which was not satisfactory to the unemployed, was read, loud cries went up, and I have no doubt it is quite true that there were such phrases used as "Down with the National Government" I do not think the usual term "Up with the Reds" was, in fact, used on this occasion. The phrases most used were "Down with the National Government" and "Not a penny off the dole" and phrases of that kind.
Something must have happened then which disturbed the tranquillity of mind of those who were responsible for maintaining law and order. What I would like to stress to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is just as well, in the interests of all concerned, that we should know precisely what it was that was responsible for the sudden emergence from the police bridewell of some hundreds of police officers, who immediately got into active conflict and contact with the procession. After then the procession was split into two fairly large processions, and an attempt was made to turn one
of them from one thoroughfare into another into which the unemployed did not desire to proceed. There was a crush and panic, and the inevitable injuries were received, and there was the inevitable bad blood, but after that the procession reformed, apparently with the consent of the police. The procession made its way to the place known as Islington Square.
It is necessary for me to mention this because the principle that I have in mind, and what is exercising me in raising this matter to-night, is that I think there is a definite challenge to the right of free speech and of the right of organised members of the community, so long as they comport themselves in a proper manner, to have processions through a thoroughfare in regard to which there is no by-law or Act of Parliament to say it is improper. So then the procession returned to Islington Square—a place which is well known, for I am not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman's very able assistant himself has not spoken in Islington Square when he had the pleasure of entering into a conflict with me at a certain election. The Islington Square of Liverpool is known as a free ground on which all kinds of speeches can be made without any interference from the police authorities. It is a place where no damage can be done, and it has been found very useful to enable various speakers of various kinds of thought to let themselves go. I, myself, have on many occasions spoken on Islington Square, and I am looking forward to saying a few kindly words about the present Government in a few weeks' time. The point I want to make about the Islington Square meeting is that there is no law or by-law to prevent the unemployed or any other section of the community meeting and speaking there.
There is no suggestion that this meeting commenced with any riotous or disorderly intention. The only thing that was known about the meeting was a resolution that had been passed—a resolution which in its terms was not unreasonable and not calculated to give the impression to the authorities that such a procession would be likely to do anything more than normally protest.
If I may I will read the resolution in order to indicate the mind of those who were responsible for the organisation:
This mass meeting of Liverpool unemployed who have for many years past suffered starvation and misery and the terrors of mental agony by fear of the landlord throwing us on the streets with our children, who have experience of our fellow workers being driven to suicide through these conditions, who see that the world contains all the raw materials and the machinery to provide food and plenty for all, emphatically protests against starvation amidst plenty. We claim from the powers that be and the system that makes these conditions, the right to live, and towards this end to make the following demands from the Liverpool Public Assistance Committee.
That was publicly known to be the mind of the procession that was going to demonstrate on its way to the municipal offices to receive the reply of the public assistance committee. I know that this is a very difficult time, not only for the unemployed but also for the police. I do not think anyone will accuse me of bringing unfairly any charge against the administration of the police authorities as a whole. But I feel this, and it is with the memory sometimes of incidents that have not always been so thoroughly inquired into as one would like, that I would like to ask the Home 'Secretary to keep in very close touch with all his police authorities, and to let it be known to the police and watch committees generally that these are times when the utmost benevolence, consideration and clemency should be exercised, that there should not be any provocative display of a force which can always be applied if the worst comes to the worst, and, knowing what the difficulties of local authorities are and the mentality sometimes of watch committees, I should like to see the establishment of a mind that would approximate to that which prevailed during the period of the General Strike.
On the Merseyside during the General Strike we went from beginning to end without a single conflict between those who were demonstrating and the police authorities. I think it is possible to go on in that spirit. I think that we are entitled to ask whether the local authority has been able to give to the Home Secretary a detailed statement up to the moment. I do not press the right hon. Gentleman too much for a reply in detail now, because he has had but 24 hours.
But it is of sufficient importance to the House and the general public outside, in connection with the policy of the Government and local authorities in dealing with the acknowledged and professed right of all citizens to congregate together in orderly manner, that there should be no restriction upon their processions and the thoroughfares that they may use, or at least if they are to be barred from certain thoroughfares that the first opportunity should be taken of acquainting those who are taking part in the processions. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will institute that measure of inquiry into the circumstances of this case, not only in fairness to the people of Liverpool who have been disturbed by this occurrence, but in the interests of the police themselves, who are always in a difficult position in conflicts of this kind; and I am certain that the example of his action, taken on this occasion, will be reflected by the interest shown in industrial areas in other parts of the country.

11.0 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): The hon. Member has spoken with his accustomed moderation and restraint and with that sense of responsibility which the House expects from him, and also with consideration for the police force with which he himself was so long and so honourably associated. It is well that the facts of occurrences such as the incident to which he refers should be publicly known, and I make no complaint whatever that he should have wised this question. He has mentioned the constitutional position of the Home Secretary in matters of this kind. Where the Metropolitan police are concerned, the Home Secretary is the police authority and takes responsibility for the actions of the Commissioner of Police, but outside London, in the counties and the boroughs, that is not so. The police are administered by the standing joint committees in the counties and by the watch committees in the boroughs. They are not employed by the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary, does not issue orders to them, and is not directly responsible for their actions. He can indeed intervene, if at any time it is shown that a particular police force is not properly administered, and he in-
tervenes in such cases for the reason that the State provides half the cost of these forces and has to assure itself that the money is properly expended and that the forces are administered in a right manner.
For the rest in a case such as this, any citizens of Liverpool who may feel aggrieved should have recourse to their own municipality and its watch committee, who are the police authority for the police force of Liverpool, or else, if they have any grievance which would justify legal proceedings they should take legal proceedings in the courts. However, it has been customary for the Home Secretary on occasions like this to give all the information in his possession to the House of Commons when it is asked for, and I gladly give it in this instance. I have received very full reports from Liverpool, and I will give the substance of them. Meetings of unemployed people have been held on several occasions within the last few days without any objection or interference, and resolutions such as that quoted by the hon. Member have been moved and adopted. There have also been processions. There was a procession on the 14th which led to no interference from the police. There was a procession on the 16th which led to no interference from the police and there was this procession on the 23rd which was not in any way interfered with on its march to the offices of the public assistance committee which are in the centre of the city.
The actual procession numbered 2,000 to 3,000 persons. They attended at those offices and sent in a deputation which was received. When it was about to return the Chief Superintendent informed the leaders of the procession that they should return by what was the most convenient route, through Stanley Street and Victoria Street, and the procession set out accordingly, along the line of march indicated by the Chief Superintendent. But on the way it turned aside and insisted upon going through another street, called Dale Street. Cries and shouts were raised, the procession became somewhat disorderly, and the police had to intervene in order to see that the injunction of the Chief Superintendent of Police was observed. That was the only cause of the intervention. It was not any desire to prevent the procession marching to the centre of the city, it
was not any thought that the resolution which was read out was one that ought not to have been passed, it was not any attempt to exercise a censorship over what was done at the meeting; it was solely the fact that the police in the performance of their duty to regulate the traffic through the city, had instructed the procession that on its return it should go along a certain route, whereupon numbers of the people tried to break away and to go through other streets.
Then the police had to intervene, and did so, and turned back the procession along the authorised route; and there was some conflict at that point. Afterwards the people re-formed their procession and held the meeting to which the hon. Member has referred. There was no objection at all to their holding the meeting. There was no desire to interfere in any way with it, but what happened was that there was a good deal of excitement and shouting, and a certain number of people began to throw stories at the police. The hon. Member omitted to mention that not unimportant fact. When the police began to have stones thrown at them, not unnaturally they thought it was necessary to take action, and they proceeded to disperse the meeting. No force was used other than was required, no batons were drawn, there was no undue violence of any kind, and no one was seriously hurt at all.
Four persons were arrested for resisting the police. One of them, it is alleged, was brandishing a hammer, a somewhat dangerous weapon. These four men were brought before the magistrate and they were remanded until Tuesday next, and, as the case is sub judice it would obviously be quite improper for me to say anything with regard to it. That is the whole simple story of the occurrence, and I do not think the police, on the information given to me, are in any way to be held blameworthy or to have exceeded in any degree the duty cast upon them to maintain due order and to see that when processions take place they go along the authorised routes and do not break away into other streets along which they are not directed by the police to proceed.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments
because of my experience as chairman of a standing joint committee, and having had a good deal to do with the administration of the police in South Wales. If there was one argument for the National Government to remain in office, I agree that it would be that the present Home Secretary is very well adapted, by his toleration and fairmindedness, for the office that he holds. There is only one criticism I would make of his speech. He said that the Home Secretary had the right to withhold the grant from a standing joint committee when the police force was not properly administered. I agree, but that phrase "properly administered" is a very elastic one, and, speaking as one who has suffered from the interference of the Home Office in withholding the grant in Monmouthshire, I am not prepared to accept that without qualification. Let me say at once that I am a great admirer of the police, and I have learned to admire them more because of the conflicts I have had with them.
We must admit that the clothing of an ordinary man in blue and brass does not make him more than human. I admit they have an exceedingly difficult task in a case like that at Liverpool, for they are likely to be blamed whatever they do. I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that in many police authorities—I speak of the police authorities in Wales—and in some cases the chief of police there is a disposition to regard our democracy as a mob in times of difficulty. I ask that the people whom we on this side regard particularly as our treasure, who have fought for their country and are now fighting for their wives and children, should be regarded as citizens and Britons. I ask also that some appeal might be made by the Home Office to the authorities to keep their heads cool this winter. I have reason for saying that. There are many in the police force, who are temperamentally and mentally unfitted to deal with crowds in times like this. In our troubles of 1926 there was one superintendent of police no more fitted to take that particular job than I am. I know of another who commanded columns of unemployed and locked out men. He actually accompanied thousands of people and marched at their head to the board of guardians when they wanted to send in a deputation.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that the Home Secretary is not responsible for the police except in the Metropolitan area.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I was only trying to argue that the Home Secretary is responsible in this sense that he can, through the Home Office, appeal to the local police authorities as to the way they should handle the people in their areas. I recall an occasion when we on the Monmouth Standing Joint Committee implored the chief of police to handle the people through their trade union leaders—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Home Secretary, again, is not responsible for the local authorities.

Mr. VAUGHAN: May I therefore appeal through this House to the local authorities which control the police forces—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have informed the hon. Member that the Home Secretary is not responsible for the local authorities.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I accept your Ruling. I will only ask that as much moderation and mercy as possible shall be shown in places where the Home Secretary has direct control, and where he has indirect control through the local authorities, who will be charged with great responsibility this winter, particularly in our crowded valleys of South Wales, and even in the Forest of Dean.

Mr. GIBBINS: Islington Square will easily hold the number of people mentioned by the Home Secretary without incommoding anybody, and if it is true that only that small number of people was there, our complaint that such a large display of force was brought on the scene is justified.

Mr. SPEAKER: Here, again, the responsibility is that of the Liverpool Watch Committee, and not of the Home Secretary.

Mr. GIBBINS: My only point is that if we can show that the cause of the trouble was due to an unnecessary display of force, we ought to be able to persuade the Home Secretary, by the use of general instructions, to induce watch committees to insist cm keeping a large
display of force out of the way of these people at a time when they are in a very bad temper because of the troubles they are going through.

Mr. LOGAN: As an old member of the Liverpool Watch Committee, I think the Home Secretary has some responsibility as regards instructions which can be given to watch committees. The management of the police in any borough is one of the factors to be taken into consideration in deciding the grants from the State. I am fully aware of my responsibility for any words I utter in this House, but as one who has seen trouble with large bodies of people in this city, as one who has been chairman of the board of guardians at a time when demonstrations come along, and know the danger that can arise through people who ought to keep a firm grip of things losing their heads, I wish to impress upon the Home Secretary the gravity of the situation. I submit that when a peaceful body of people come along a head constable has no authority to map out a line of route for them.

Mr. SPEAKER: It would be quite wrong of the House to criticise the watch committees and chief constables in various localities. We have no responsibility for them.

Mr. LOGAN: I am reminded in Liverpool that the watch committee have complete control, and we are told the same thing in the House of Commons, but this House has control over finance, and, if there is no other method, the Home Office may be able to let these autocratic bodies know that if at this time of crisis they do not act in a proper way, the Home Office will not be able to give them money. The gravity of the situation calls for some kindly word of advice; it might be possible, through the Home Office to get co-operation with various bodies at this critical time.
I will not say more. I think the hon. Member for Edgehill (Mr. Hayes) has dealt very tactfully with the matter; but as one interested in the poorest areas of the Scotland division and in my own people—and I can say they are my own people—I want to see the poor protected, and to save a repetition of these disgraceful scenes in the City of Liverpool.

Mr. TILLETT: I have had experience of hundreds of cases of this kind in which the Army and Navy have been employed. I would like to know from the Home Secretary what authority the Home Office has over the Army and Navy in matters of industrial disputes?

Mr. KINLEY: If the Home Secretary would search the records of his Department he would never find, in any such case as this, any report from the chief constable other than the kind of report which he has read to the House to-night, because no chief constable ever sends a report which will implicate the police force of which he is in charge. I want the Home Secretary to take upon himself the responsibility of making an investigation in order to discover why the order was given to divert the procession away from the buildings where the body was sitting which the procession had gone to interview. They might have been sent down Stanley Street as being a quieter road than Dale Street, but the municipal buildings are in Dale Street, and in those buildings were the body which the procession wanted to interview.
It must be remembered that it was from those buildings that the procession was diverted by orders of the police. Quite naturally the people tried to get back as near as possible to the buildings in which they wanted to be interviewed. While asking for bread to eat they were diverted in this way from that purpose by the police, and when they turned back to ask for more bread they found a large force of police turned out to see that they did not get it. If stone-throwing took place, whose fault was it? Are the people who are asking for more bread to blame? Surely it is not right or proper that we should be expected to allow incidents of this kind to go by in silence. I suggest that the Home Secretary should get in touch with the governors of Liverpool University who have placed on record after full investigation that 16 per cent. of the overcrowded people in that particular area are below the poverty line. These people below the poverty line went to ask for more bread—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking the Home Secretary to go far beyond his own particular job.

Mr. KINLEY: While I agree, as a member of long standing of a local authority, that initially the local watch committee is responsible for law and order, this House cannot divest itself of responsibility. The House has recently decided that the condition of those people is to be worsened, and these people are bound to ask that their legitimate rights should be granted to go to the local authorities concerned and appeal to them to make up what has been taken from them.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is much beyond the subject raised by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes). It has nothing to do with the Home Secretary.

Mr. KINLEY: What I am saying not only operated in this case but will operate in every case in every other industrial area in the country and that we cannot divest ourselves of responsibility. While it is technically true that the local watch committee is responsible for the conduct of the police, this House also is responsible for this change in the standard of living of the people which may bring them into conflict with the police.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must get on to some definite subject. He cannot talk at large of the general policy of the Government in a case of this kind. This is a particular occasion on which the action of the Home Secretary is brought into question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not in order to ask the Home Secretary not to take merely the report of the local police, who are interested parties? My hon. Friend was asking the Home Secretary to get some neutral body to carry out an inquiry and report on it. Further, you, Sir, said in an earlier Ruling that we could not criticise the superintendence of certain bodies. The Chief Constable is appointed by the Watch Committee and by the Home Secretary jointly. We are arguing that the Home Secretary ought to withdraw his approval of the Chief Constable unless a different tone and outlook is taken. In view of that I ask if my hon. Friend may not be allowed to develop his point.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot enter into an argument with the hon. Member, but he must recollect that there is a system
of local government in the country, under which these matters are dealt with, and we cannot be constantly dealing with them in this House.

Mr. KINLEY: I am bound to accept your Ruling. I come back to the narrower issue that there has been no record of any conflicts on the part of these people with the police until this occasion. I want the Home Secretary to accept the assurance of hon. Members from Liverpool and the neighbour-
hood that this trouble would not have arisen but for the action of the police, and to insist that there shall be an inquiry into it, and that it shall be presided over by some impartial individual, who will see that the unemployed have a fair chance of trying to get their wrongs rectified.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.